I can't say that the study of philosophy produced positive changes in my mental health. What philosophy was useful for was understanding why I had experienced positive changes. I have held it as an axiom of mental health therapy that "Therapy means change, not adjustment." Change might not be produced by one's own initiative; it may happen TO a person, or be brought about BY the person.

IF we keep doing the same things that are driving us crazy, then we will stay crazy. Ceasing crazy-making behavior will (usually) help a great deal. That assumes, of course, that one can change. If raising one's 6 children on a poverty budget is driving one crazy, one might have to stick with it anyway. Or, if the only job one can find is bad for mental health, one might have to stay on the job. [During WWII soldiers in Europe deserted at a fairly high rte -- usually returning to their units later. Soldiers in the Pacific almost never deserted. Did the Pacific Theater soldiers like being in battle? Probably not. But in a war fought on isolated islands in a big ocean, there was no way to desert.]

That's my case. Other people might have knotty problems that weigh heavily on their minds, for which clarity of thought might be extremely helpful and bring relief. In that sort of situation, philosophy could be good therapy. If one is troubled by one's history of bad actions, an study of ethics might prove very helpful.

If we keep doing the same things that are driving us crazy, then we will stay crazy. Ceasing crazy-making behavior will (usually) help a great deal. That assumes, of course, that one can change. If raising one's 6 children on a poverty budget is driving one crazy, one might have to stick with it anyway. Or, if the only job one can find is bad for mental health, one might have to stay on the job.

What about external crazy making factors?

If one is troubled by one's history of bad actions, an study of ethics might prove very helpful.

Or troubles by the history of bad actions inflicted upon them.

What about...? Both, of course. We accept a job. It turns out to be a nightmare. We didn't make it a nightmare, but we keep showing up every day. The stress of the job is horrible. We probably can't change the workplace, but we can quit.

Sometimes people are out to get us and the only thing we can do is avoid them or defend ourselves. This may be much easier said than done. Harassers can be devious devils.

I wouldn't hazard a guess about the percentages of internal vs. external stressors. In many cases, it's both. We have pictures of what a perfect life ought to be. Other people fail to cooperate in supporting our picture of the perfect life. Other people in the apartment building make too much noise. The neighbor's dogs bark all the time. There is too much traffic in the street. On and on. We keep identifying new guilty parties who are ruining our perfect life. Alternatively, we could try and accept that we live in a very unsatisfactory, noisy, dog-barking, trafficed, world. (Easier said than done.).

I can testify to having made my own life more difficult than it needed to be because I didn't follow my own good advice.

Poor people, for instance, suffer from a higher rate of both physical and mental diseases because of the low quality of their surrounding environment. Bad air, maybe lead in the paint on the windows (or in the water), low grade housing, poverty, food deserts, crime, violence, crappy schools, and so forth.

I think that studying and learning anything new, for at least most people, has the added benefit of absorbing one's attention, focus, energies, and thus distracting/finding a new outlet for current issues. That being said, I personally owe philosophy my life, if it hadn't been for reading several key (and relevant) thinkers like Albert Camus, Sartre, Becker, and feminist thinkers-Goldman, Wolf ect. I would have probably killed myself-or in the case of the feminist writers; been extremely lost, confused, victimized ect... philosophy is so crucial because it addresses real and relevant issues to everyday life, everyday frustrations, and everyday suffering. Psychology is boring in comparison. Watered down neuroscience imo.

It's been very useful to me all my life, and it finally helped me to come out of the atheist closet. My nebulous conception of whatever Oneness or Wholeness was worthy of being nicknamed God has dried up and blown away. I realized participating in this forum that I can appreciate the known universe as what we humans call physics and leave it at that. Because it is quite beautiful (anthropomorphic expression), but what words can we use to describe anything without being completely anthropomorphic?

I understand the fact that billions of people live with what I perceive as an Illusion or fairy tale. I can understand how the naked, stark, no-God version is just too harsh for so many. If it requires some specific kind of emotional maturity to assert one's atheism, like a putting away of childish things, I don't count it for a whole lot on the maturity scale-- I count patience and kindness with others extremely high on the emotional scale.

Atheism doesn't diminish the pleasure I experience reading and studying the Torah etc. I'd say my bottom line is to read philosophy psychoanalytically and through Marx's definition of ideology. I always like to try to understand the material base of one's professed beliefs, for therein I find the truth. Expose the ideology. Deconstruct.

One example: My decades of studying and teaching about Spanish American history, culture and literature (using a Marxist-psychoanalytic perspective) revealed the entire dirty underbelly of the conquest of the New World--which may come as no surprise to anyone on this forum, but when I taught a course on Colonial prose texts including chronicles, letters, diaries, royal proclamations, papal dispositions, indigenous versions of the conquest, laws regarding treatment of indigenous and African slaves, etc. The deals the Pope was making with Portugal and Spain, dividing up the new continent--and all of this so the Catholic church could save souls and convert savages. It was pure greed and imperialistic fanaticism that whipped Ferdinand and Isabel into a frenzy, and if you've ever read Cristóbal Colón's diary, his sociopathic view of the indigenous people (how easily they can be subjugated and expolited by the king) is chilling.

And to read about what Pizarro's men did a few decades later in the region that became Perú: reminiscent of the war atrocities we see sprinkeled throughout history. So the indigenous people wouold tell them where the gold was. Greed, blood-lust and drive for power are always woven throughout the dominant group's economic base. Imperialism: what a pretty word for genocide/enslavement/occupation.

So in conclusion, one can easily see that the notion of a loving God and saving souls had nothing to do with the genuine enterprise. Anyone who believes that ideology is a a dangerous fool.

I literally philosophized my way out of life-crippling depression a decade ago. The depression didn't go away, but I became extremely functional despite it because of philosophical principles I adopted, which also turned out to be the foundation I had been looking for for my entire philosophical system.

More recently, I've been having the worst mental health catastrophe of my life, existential horror like I simply could not comprehend before it afflicted me, and for the nearly a year I've been suffering through it and failing to philosophize my way out of it, I began to think that it had proven the abject failure of all philosophy and I even tried (with no success) to abandon my principles and run to religion just to escape the emotional suffering, but as of this weekend I feel like I have not only philosophized my way out of that problem at long last, but also once again discovered the most profound missing pieces of my philosophical system in the process.

You might find the derivation of 'therapy' interesting - from an ancient Jewish sect, the Therapeutae, about which more here.

On a related note, the Buddha is sometimes said to be 'the supreme physician' and his teaching said to comprise 'the greatest medicine'.

I’ve gone for ‘positive’. Thinking seems like a healthy occupation. There are ups and downs, but overall I wouldn’t call it a ‘rollercoaster’.

Exercising the brain is generally good for the brain right? I would say that philosophical discussions allow readymade branches into other areas of thought - meaning interest in ethics attaches to aesthetics, politics to economics, nihilism to hedonism, etc.,. Other subject areas like sciences and arts do this too, but they are pursuits I find to be less accessible without practical knowledge of methodology (which is another area for philosophical discussion).

I particularly find the term ‘philosophy’ to be an item universal with a universal though, so I can easily understand people swerving away from the question.

...what words can we use to describe anything without being completely anthropomorphic? — uncanni

Words based upon knowledge of all thought and belief, so as to be able to know which aspects of human thought and belief are unique to humans and which are not. Being anthropomorphic is not equivalent to being human. It's what's going on when we mistakenly attribute characteristics unique to humans to things other than humans.

Philosophy has been quite helpful in that arena.

Knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is crucial for mental health.

I don't think there have been any negative effects from philosophy in my life per se. The unexamined life is not worth living, better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, etc etc.

But there are social... consequences. It can feel a little isolating every now and then to have thoughts or want to have conversations you can't share with everyone, because they just don't get it/have zero interest. But then you find like-minded people and surround yourself with curious people, and it ain't so bad after all.

Anything that leads us to think carefully about what we do and why we are doing it is bound to help, I suppose.

As far as I can tell it's had no bearing on my mental health.

It positively affected my critical thinking/reasoning abilities in general, but I wouldn't say that amounted to any impact on my mental health.

It might be harder to say since (a) I've never had any significant mental health problems aside from some problems with anxiety at one point--I was getting panic attacks which seemed to be related to being hypochondriacal, although hypochondria might have been kind of ad hoc to explain the panic attacks; it wound up seeming to be more due to a lifestyle change at the time, or they could have been drug precipitated--I was doing a lot of experimentation at that time (philosophy didn't do anything to help with that--the panic attacks just gradually lessened/went away after about a year), and (b) I first started reading a ton of philosophy when I was 11 years old.

so as to be able to know which aspects of human thought and belief are unique to humans and which are not. Being anthropomorphic is not equivalent to being human. It's what's going on when we mistakenly attribute characteristics unique to humans to things other than humans. — creativesoul

I'd have to say that all aspects of human thought and belief are unique to humans: what are you suggesting???

Giving the universe anthropomorphic characteristics is what I was referring to.

all aspects of human thought and belief are unique to humans: — uncanni

Evolutionary theory suggests otherwise.

And do the other species project their beliefs and thoughts onto the universe? Do we have a way to know that?

Relevant link I found relating to my earlier comments on how inherent philosophy, in my opinion can be, to not only deconstructing and understanding/comprehending one's life, beliefs, social strata ect. but for mental health and overall wellbeing.
https://apple.news/Ayy3RPwHkT4SyIt0EBG4gYw

Wow! I’ve literally thought of the same thing but to teach ethics specifically! This is great!

Knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is crucial for mental health. — creativesoul

:up:

https://apple.news/Ayy3RPwHkT4SyIt0EBG4gYw — Grre

Thanks.

I'm a cheerful pessimist (i.e. sarcastic absurdist) - philosophizing has helped me for decades to grind & polish daily the lense(s) through which I've made some sense of The Nonsense (& fuckery) of my life, the universe and everything. I can't imagine 'intellectual hygiene' not having helped to some degree maintain my mental health and fitness. So far. :scream:

I don't know what you mean by "project onto the universe"?

Because it is quite beautiful (anthropomorphic expression), but what words can we use to describe anything without being completely anthropomorphic? — uncanni

I wanted to re-approach this.

It's not fait accompli. It's not inevitable. It could be a necessary(unavoidable) foregone logical conclusion, but that assumes precisely what's in question, and thus needs adequately argued for. I'm strongly doubting - outright denying - that all human terminological description misattributes uniquely human characteristics to that which is not human.

Not all description is anthropomorphic.

I know of no way to avoid sounding pretentious should the reader chose such an interpretation, but I'm hopeful that this lands gently enough despite the risk...

You seem to be charging yourself with projecting humanity onto things not human. I wonder why?
I mean, I know it doesn't have to be that way, and based upon what you did say, I would strongly disagree. I'm suggesting that perhaps you're being a little too hard on yourself. If you think that anthropomorphism is inevitable, then I want to ask if you remember the source of that particular belief?

I mean, where did you get that idea? Seriously. I'm not being rhetorical at all here. Rather, I'm saying that that source gave you misleading ideas. Moreover, you most certainly do not have to keep on believing those things.


Calling the universe "beautiful" does not always count as being completely anthropomorphic. I mean, when the speaker knows that they are simply stating their own personal tastes, then they presumably would also know that that is not the same as saying that the universe is inherently, intrinsically, or otherwise beautiful in and of itself, independently of all human thought and belief. The former(knowing that statement's an expression of one's personal taste) is not a case of misattributing uniquely human characteristics to that which is not human. The latter(claiming that beauty - somehow - exists within beautiful things prior to all humans) does exactly that.

A more poetic rendering of the same sentiment could be:One who knows that beauty is always in the eye of the beholder ought also know that beauty cannot possibly be both, always in the eye of a beholder and exist prior to beholders.

:smile:

Gotta be some eyes around somewhere in order for anything to be in them. So, with all that in mind... We can believe that the universe is beautiful, without believing that beauty is inherent to things we call beautiful.

This seems an appropriate segue to revert back to being a bit more directly connected with the OP.

Philosophy helped me tremendously in that I've developed a much more reliable criterion for critically examining all the different narratives. In addition, it's also helped me to better navigate my own personal relationships, you know, the daily interactions we all have(I presume).

An earlier poster remarked about the lack of popular appeal. I would agree. That's a large part of why I'm very fond of putting things as simply and concisely as possible, whenever possible, assuming we're talking about an adequate explanation. "God did it" does not work for me(for example).

Philosophy has also given me pause at times. It can be quite disillusioning to realize that some things are not the way you thought they were. It can be quite disheartening to realize that what needs fixed cannot be fixed because the current circumstances quite simply aren't amenable to the sorts of change that needs to happen in order to fix things.

That's awesome. Really and truly.

I think I got two different topics confused. Sorry for the confusion.

The other topic mentioned intelligent design, which is an irritating term for me. Or perhaps it was someone referring to the "order" of the universe that got me thinking of how humans project their own types of perceptions (order vs chaos) onto the universe..

You seem to be charging yourself with projecting humanity onto things not human. I wonder why? — creativesoul

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my sweeping generalization. I try to avoid anthropomorphizing the cosmos; I'm even trying to stop thinking of Mother Nature as "feminine." I'm in the process of paring down my atheism to bare bones (forgive the anthropomorphism)--stripped of any kind of language that would make it more warm and fuzzy, so to speak. So a term like intelligent design rubs me the wrong way these days. I perceive the known universe as operating according to a series of predictable (up or down to a point, with some exceptions, like the mechanics of liquids) "laws" we call physics; and I conclude that if we ever achieve the ability to know what is now unknown and it did not follow the "laws" of physics, that we'd find another discourse with which to explain it to ourselves.

I'm a cheerful pessimist (i.e. sarcastic absurdist) - philosophizing has helped me daily to grind & polish the lense(s) through which I've made some sense of The Nonsense (& fuckery) of my life, the universe and everything. — 180 Proof

Well said. I think of dark laughter, the infinity of consciousness, a gleam in the eye. It comes and goes. And it's darkly ironic, pessimistic. 'It' enjoys playing with terrible things. Somehow nonsense and fuckery work as a background, as raw material.

:cool:

I’m so glad you guys brought up Pessimism!

I’ll open up a discussion soon on Optimism vs Pessimism using the question “how we should react to climate change?” as a medium for the overall debate between Optimism and Pessimism.

Sounds good! I also answer your OP a little more. Philosophy has mostly been good for me, but it's led me down some dangerous paths. Nietzsche was a dangerous brew for me in my 20s. I've read many thinkers, but I tend to love the 'evil' thinkers. I don't mean they were bad people but that took delight in describing what unsettling about existence. They offered the red pill. Like the chess player Tal.

Widely regarded as a creative genius and one of the best attacking players of all time, Tal played in a daring, combinatorial style.[2][3] His play was known above all for improvisation and unpredictability. It has been said that “Every game for him was as inimitable and invaluable as a poem".[4] He was often called "Misha", a diminutive for Mikhail, and "The magician from Riga".
...
Tal was the archetype of the attacking player, developing an extremely powerful and imaginative style of play. His approach over the board was very pragmatic—in that respect, he is one of the heirs of ex-world champion Emanuel Lasker. He often sacrificed material in search of the initiative, which is defined by the ability to make threats to which the opponent must respond. With such intuitive sacrifices, he created vast complications, and many masters found it impossible to solve all the problems he created over the board, though deeper post-game analysis found flaws in some of his conceptions. — Wiki

He created vast complications! That's the red pill, and it's addictive. Philosophy is a celebration of the infinity of consciousness, and consciousness is self-mutilating, armed always against what it was in the name of what it might be.