Nobody wants that kind of slave life. It's not that simple. I have priorities, I have my own place, I have my principles, I have my desires, I have my plans.

And no she isn't. Take that back, or I'll wait until you're all cosy and warm, fast asleep in bed, and then drive a sword through your chest.

It's not that simple. I have priorities, I have my own place, I have my principles, I have my desires, I have my plans. — S

You know, giving up on all those things ain't all that bad.

Wallow wallow.

And no she isn't. Take that back, or I'll wait until you're all cosy and warm, fast asleep in bed, and then drive a sword through your chest. — S

Nuh huh. If you kick and beat her then she deserves better. I'm glad Oksa is with your mom.

You know, giving up on all those things ain't all that bad.

Wallow wallow. — Wallows

It wouldn't be the end of the world. Or maybe it would be for me. But anyway, I'm convinced that I would be worse off otherwise, otherwise I would have simply quit. Quit my job, moved out, abandoned my principles, and so on.

Nuh huh. If you kick and beat her then she deserves better. I'm glad Oksa is with your mom. — Wallows

My mom? She likes to stick sharp pins in her and swing her around by her tail.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, as they say.

Meh

The old fashioned objection to ad hominem arguments is not based on whether they are accurate or not in regards to any description of the interlocutor but that any such depictions fail to take responsibility for one's own thinking.

The psychologist fallacy, holding that it is an informal fallacy to assume your idiosyncratic psychological bias is shared by all:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist%27s_fallacy

The old fashioned objection to ad hominem arguments is not based on whether they are accurate or not in regards to any description of the interlocutor but that any such depictions fail to take responsibility for one's own thinking. — Valentinus

The common objection is that it's irrelevant. It is a fallacy of relevance, after all. It addresses the person rather than the substance of the argument. It's uncalled for.

Except that, sometimes, comments about the person you're talking to are very relevant. It's not all about the substance of the argument. It is not uncommon to encounter problems because of the person you're talking to.

Finally, I propose we do away with psychologizing altogether. It's a honey pot that trolls and the like use or weaponizes for their satisfaction. — Wallows

That's an odd opinion, given that Psychology (granted, that's not the same as psychologizing, but still...) is one of Philosophy's children.

In Freud's (simplified) three-layer cake of the mind there is the Superego, the Ego, and the Id. The Superego is the embodiment of society: we should do this, we should do that; You'd better, you'd better not, just do what you're told, OBEY, and so on. Social Rules and Regs. The Id is, in sum, our most basic desires and needs; It's sex, status, gratification, love, all that stuff. All very powerful.

What's left for the Ego? The task of the Ego is to mediate between the imperatives of society and the imperatives of the body (the Id). This is where reality testing comes in: what priorities of the Superego can be ignored; what demands of the Id can be set aside. How do I (the sentient subject) get through this situation? What can not be ignored; what has to be sacrificed?

So, if one had never heard of Sigmund Freud, had he been run over by a train when he was five years old, we wouldn't use these terms. If you were a Skinnerian behaviorist, you'd just dismiss all that ego business as pure bunk anyway. You'd use the tools of philosophy and science to come up with some other way of explain behavior.

BUT: Explaining human behavior, human thinking, human personality, and so on is not outside of philosophy's purview. It's right down its alley.

That's an odd opinion, given that Psychology (granted, that's not the same as psychologizing, but still...) is one of Philosophy's children. — Bitter Crank

This is distorted. Just because psychology is a child of philosophy that does not grant authority by or from a philosopher to expound beliefs or assessments or some such matter in regards to what exactly is human nature.

And I think we can both agree when talk about psychology becomes psychologizing.

This is distorted. Just because psychology is a child of philosophy that does not grant authority by or from a philosopher to expound beliefs or assessments or some such matter in regards to what exactly is human nature. — Wallows

They already have that authority. We all do. We have it by default. On the contrary, you do not have the authority to silence us. It is our right to freedom of expression.

You have the right to disagree, not to silence.

By the Power Invested in me by the Supreme Being, I hereby grant you the authority to speculate and expound, declaim, state, write about, or otherwise express you views and opinions about what you think constitutes human nature.

If I like the drift of somebody's psychologizing, then it is OK. If I don't like what I'm hearing, they'll have to be taken out back and be given a good beating.

Great minds think alike. (And everyone else should be taken out back and shot: a good beating is too lenient).

Lol, I am not here to silence anyone. Do as thy please.

Egocentrism is mainly about not being able to differentiate self from other. Psychologizing is necessary as I see it, nowhere does it connote having an outward/external context. It means not being ignorant of one's own states of mind, foremost, and to be aware when one is starting to egocentrate, so as to nip it in the bud.

Ego is complemented by superego; narcissism needs collective narcissism. How someone relates to themselves when alone is of tremendous import as ego and narcissism aren't possible with a cloistered lifestyle.

Enter psychologizing, which for me is none different than auto-psychoanalysis. Completely necessary. Also, projection and introjection are often seen in severe mental illness. Why we wouldn't want to talk about this I can't understand. As said, ecocentrism is confusion of self and other...in other words precisely caused by projection and introjection,... these issues can't be ignored whatever term you choose to denominate the process. — Anthony

Well described. Ego is Freud's notion. Common use is different. Philosophical use, according to that link... seems bunk to me. An astute philosopher would be using Freud's notion as he intended, or else common use, and s/he ought make that much clear either way. That said...

As true as the above is, this is a philosophy forum and the only appropriate reply to personal attacks, regardless of the possible psychological underpinnings, is calling it out. It is unacceptable, and is usually a clear sign that the author's position lacks 'substance'. If that doesn't help, it is usually best to simply ignore such people.

Lol, I am not here to silence anyone. Do as thy please. — Wallows

Then what was your point? Saying that they don't have the authority to do what they're doing suggests that you don't think that they're permitted to do so, and should be silent unless they have approval from this presumed authority of yours. Who is this presumed authority? Is it you? Must we acquire your permission?

As true as the above is, this is a philosophy forum and the only appropriate reply to personal attacks, regardless of the possible psychological underpinnings, is calling it out. It is unacceptable, and is usually a clear sign that the author's position lacks 'substance'. If that doesn't help, it is usually best to simply ignore such people. — creativesoul

This highlights the problem well. What you're saying there is either true or false, but that's not a full explanation. What's interesting is why you might be saying it. That's part of the overall explanation.

As true as the above is, this is a philosophy forum and the only appropriate reply to personal attacks, regardless of the possible psychological underpinnings, is calling it out. It is unacceptable, and is usually a clear sign that the author's position lacks 'substance'. If that doesn't help, it is usually best to simply ignore such people.
— creativesoul

This highlights the problem well. What you're saying there is either true or false, but that's not a full explanation. — S

It's the beginnings of one. And it's true. There is no better ground.

What's interesting is why you might be saying it. — S

Some folk are interested in irrelevant things. Most - arguably all - Western philosophers have been for the better part of two centuries.

That's part of the overall explanation. — S

What's that...

..."the overall explanation"?

Except that, sometimes, comments about the person you're talking to are very relevant. — S

Always against the rules of formal debate. However, it is often knowingly used, despite being struck from the 'official' record, because some know you cannot strike the rhetorical effect/affect from the mind of the listener.

everyone else should be taken out back and shot — S

As the saying goes, "spare the bullet and then you have to put up with dipshits that much longer."

If that doesn't help, it is usually best to simply ignore such people.

Hmm.

Maybe that is also true of someone who wants to make this about "personal attacks", which demonstrates a clear violation of the principle of charity.

To speak is to psychologise. Even to talk to the cat or the wall is to imaginatively endow it with a psyche.

To speak is to psychologise. Even to talk to the cat or the wall is to imaginatively endow it with a psyche. — unenlightened

My cat and my wall are my two best friends. They're also my only friends. We have such riveting conversations. They're good listeners.

They're good listeners. — S

That's what matters, surely. No one minds being told what they're like and what they think as long as it's right. I'm a good listener too, so it is quite pleasing to me when someone says that talking to me is like talking to a brick wall.

That's what matters, surely. No one minds being told what they're like and what they think as long as it's right. I'm a good listener too, so it is quite pleasing to me when someone says that talking to me is like talking to a brick wall. — unenlightened

:grin::up:

Considering the influence one's psychology has over one's perception, it is safe to say psychology is in fact fundamental to philosophy. As Plato said, just like the body needs to be brought to a healthy condition by medicine before it can be brought to its optimal condition through gymnastics, so too does the mind need to become healthy through (a form of) psychiatry, before it can be brought to its optimal condition by philosophy.

Whether it is productive to speculate about anothers psychology is a different story. The only one who knows whether such speculations are true is the person themselves, and even if it would be true, their state of mind may deceive them into denying it is true.

Whether it is productive to speculate about anothers psychology is a different story. The only one who knows whether such speculations are true is the person themselves, and even if it would be true, their state of mind may deceive them into denying it is true. — Tzeentch

Isn't much of psychology speculation, anyway? And I think in some cases, the person might well not know it to be true on any level, even subconsciously.

No one minds being told what they're like and what they think as long as it's right. — unenlightened

And here you highlight the problem. When is one right about one's ideas about the other person?

Surely, someone might take offence to it.

Whether it is productive to speculate about anothers psychology is a different story. The only one who knows whether such speculations are true is the person themselves, and even if it would be true, their state of mind may deceive them into denying it is true. — Tzeentch

Quite so. And given this is an online forum, then aren't such attempts quite futile even if done sincerely?