Yes, and sorry to hear about that. Yes, these things can change in us. And there are other people and organizations out there where it is best not to show one's anger. Finding ways to deal with them can be very tricky even for adults who do accept their anger. Each situation needs to be dealt with individually. But one can, over time, get more used to one's own anger, starting alone, where it is safest. And no, not showing anger was a good strategy as a child with long term costs. But you had no choice, then.

Most "anarchist" ideals are utopian, and would only "work" in small, voluntary groups of people with some measure of morality and respect for one another, — IvoryBlackBishop

It is very hard to test, because the fact that we are brought up under threats, both social and legal, means that if we are suddenly without these outside forces and potential punishments it is a very specific situation. We are, then, precisely, people who have been under threat, released from threat. A real test would have to be, what happens if people are raised not under threat and have freedom from potential incarceration? Adn the only way to test that would be to take over an island.

It's a bit like how people who really judge anger can sometimes explode. And their explosion seems to confirm their judgments of anger. But the truth is they have very little experience with things like self-assertion and other balanced expressions of anger.

So we can look around and think we know what it would be like, but what it is like now, includes the fact that we have been presumed guilty, not really trusted and threatened since early on. That's hardly a control (as in controlled experiment) situation where we can draw conclusions about what must be present in human society.

I agree that there was some lack of clarity. When I read the OP, I thought he was saying 'it's all good'. So, I disagreed...and he agreed with me. I was surprised. I think there was lack of clarity in presenting, yes, certain theists ideas of God and what God is. It seemed like he was saying God is omnibenevolent. But i think in fact he was saying that people conceive of God as that but the fawn burning shows this is not the case. But it came off as saying - I know what God is, he's omnibenevolent. Hopefully he'll make it clear what he meant.
Here's where I began to suspect he meant to opposite.

and then here I felt more confident.


Adn there he cleared it up, in the post just below this one.

I think you are actually agreeing with each other. I could be wrong but he seems to be saying that the omnibenevolent diety - the one posited by theists - is contradicted by the fawn burning up.

I don't think it proves it, but for me the issue boils down to respecting my own values enough to consider it a problem in need of explanation if not remedy. I do assume that there are things I cannot understand and all the issues around running universes would be included in this. But if I can't trust my own feelings and reactions to the burning fawn, how can I trust my assessment that God is a loving omnibenevolent being and everything is as it should be. And how can I trust other my 'being convinced' is correct by the arguments of others on the topic, if I can't trust myself around the fawn issue?

Do you mean the gymnastics involved in explaining away such obvious problems?

What is your response to the burning fawn scenario with respect to God? — Wallows

My response is that there is a problem. It doesn't disprove God's existence. But there is a problem. I would be opposed to any deity that could not somehow convince me that this was necessary. And I don't think that would be easy to do, convince me that is.

There are instances where I would not like the use of that phrase, and instances where I would. There are artists who spend too much time beating themselves up. There are people who are too judgmental. Just because there are some situations where a phrase might be a problem does not mean we should get rid of it, since, such as in this case, there are instances where it is useful. I think the thinking around this is too binary, here. I am not saying it is used correctly all the time. I am saying that it can be and is. If I say I think it is a useful phrase that does not mean it has to be accepted as appropriate in all specific cases. I am an artist and have had contact with a lot of artists, from great and famous in a variety of fields, to merely professional, to never quite producing good art and so on. Some of these people expect inhuman perfection. Some people in the world cluck their tongues and judge others for not being Perfect in ways where that phrase is just peachy. I dislike when people want to clean up the language from phrases because in some instances those phrases are not appropriate. I am not talking about racist words, but phrases that may or may not fit. Language is

Always

Going to be able

To
Be
Used
Wrong.

But if we start throwing away all phrases that can be used wrong

We are going to be walking around with a weird internal Big Brother

Usually, when we want to do this, we look for less ambiguous phrases to get the point across. The ambiguous "I know", can get substituted with "to the best of my knowledge", which seems to encapsulate the phrase into something coherent or palpable. — Wallows

That's a long phrase to solve a problem I don't think I experience. In what contexts are you thinking we should substitute something like that? And if we really think we KNOW, that would not be conveying what we mean. I am not forced to take them at their word, but it does give me a clear message about they own assessment of their assertion. If someone I respect a lot says 'I know X to be the case' that is taken by me in one way, from a stranger another and so on. But it gives me a clear mess about that person's sense of what they are conveying. WE all know that people can think they know when in fact they don't have good ground for it. I don't feel compelled to accept what they say, but it does provide extra information. If someone goes out of their way to say 'to the best of my knowledge' I will think they are less certain or that's how they want to couch all their assertions. I won't know which until I get to know them. So, it's still not clear. And if it is someone I know, then I have a good sense of their thoroughness. I see no loss in the current common use of 'I know'. If I was naive and felt compelled or their were rules that I was compelled to accept any assertion starting that way, well, that would be a problem. But that's not the world I live in. If they say 'I think...' that conveys something else. And people can manage to convey their utter certainty and that one would be stupid to disagree with them when using 'to the best of my knowledge'. Just imagine that said in a condescending way. I don't think people should start using this long phrase that in itself might be incorrect. Perhaps they have actually seen counterexamples to what they are asserting so it isn't to the best of their knowledge, but they stubbornly believe. Any formulation is going to still be problematic if we conflate what the person means and the truth value of what they are saying.

When a person says, "I know", what do they really mean? — Wallows

They mean

X is true
and
they have no doubt X is true.

That's what they mean and it is clear.

What does IT mean if they say it?

It means they have no doubt X is the case.

Is X the case? Maybe maybe not.

But that has nothing to do with the meaning. It seems like you are conflating the truth value of the that clause with the meaning of the sentence. The meaning of the sentence is clear. Whether the that clause in and of itself is true is another matter.

I know that Idaho is the largest state.

The person is telling us that they have no doubt it is the case that Idaho is.......

The truth value of the that clause here is false. But that does not affect the meaning of 'know' in the least. He means that it is true and he has no doubt about it.

Another way to describe this is you are equivocating on the word means.

Means as in what is the person conveying.
And then the other means as in what are the consequences of hearing this assertion. That we accept their assertion about Idaho? or not?

Two different types of 'means'.

There is nothing unclear about the meaning of know.

Once an artist accepts his work as being good enough, he fails to improve it.There is always room for improvement. We will benefit more by striving for perfection. — Wittgenstein

You can make mistakes AND acknowledge that, without assuming you could have been perfect AND not accept it as it is. If you expect perfection now, in this moment, you won't allow yourself to take risks. Taking risks entails knowing that there will be failures. That doesn't mean you accept that you cannot make something incredible, it means you accept the fact that along the way you have to make mistakes. And inventors and scientists and artists have in many instances said that you have to make mistakes and not making them is a problem. This in no way stops one from striving for perfection. These are two separate things.

Well, that's an observational statement about something within the world-view of any participants of the conversation. Rather scientific and exact. But, most of the language isn't like that, so we might assume this as a statement immune to the sentiments of the need to qualify statements that are quantitative. — Wallows

Could you give an example of a kind of qualification that might make you think an assertion was less vague?

It seems to me that 'I know' is a clear statement, though obviously not a complete one. The person may or may not be correct, but we get what they are claiming. They have excellent grounds to believe that X is the case. It fits whatever rigor (if any) their epistemology has.

We can't come up with a way to qualify the statement, since it would need different more complete explanations for the different users of that phrase. Because different people, even within the same paradigm, have different criteria and different degrees of rigor.

This is language we are talking about. We cannot make individual phrases, in general, be 100% clear. And if we did, they would be so specfic as to be less useful.

A scientific journal can have specific criteria for what it will publish in a sense as well grounded conclusions.

But words and phrases are meant for all of us to use to communicate in a vast array of contexts.

I am with that the word is clear. One can use other words if one wants to be more specific about one's criteria, the process of deciding that you know, rather than, say 'believe' or 'think' X is the case.

Every word you would use in your clarification of 'I know' could then be criticized as vague, since one could always go into more detail. And any clarification of the phrase 'I know' would either be just as vague or not as generally useful.

It is an excuse for mediocrity. — Wittgenstein

It may, sometimes, be used in this way, but I hear it used in contexts that do not fit this criticism. I see it used in reaction to petty judgment that has nothing to do with mediocrity. Further The most amazing people make mistakes. In fact many of them make more mistakes than other people. To find new things: inventions, innovations, works of art - you have to make mistakes. If you do not make mistakes you are not taking risks and this will lead to mediocrity.

If the means are just, their justness is jusified in and of themselves and are not justified by the ends.

-Actions are considered good or evil (right or wrong) based on their goal which is being accomplished by the consequences of that particular action.
-If the goal being accomplished is good then something is considered right.
- As I stated earlier, we need context to judge an action.
-That context is a goal, which shows why someone did something.
-Therefore, we measure actions based on the goal being accomplished.
-The ends justify the means. — Lawrence of Arabia

I found this a bit hard to understand but you can let me know where I misunderstood.

If the goal is good and accomplished then the goal justifies the means.

My goal is the give my kids breakfast. But the nearest store is closed and they need to get to school. I drive my car through the locked doors of the nearest grocery store and leave money for the cereal I take. It is a good goal to give my kids breakfast. I did manage to give them breakfast, so the end, giving them breakfast, justifies the means, me destroying property.

Now there may be something in what I quoted above that you wrote that means I have not understood your position, let me know.

If I tell you how my family member verbally abused me, does a response of "Well, nobody is perfect.", — chatterbears

That's a terrible use of that phrase, and, of course, many people use this idea idiotically. But in the context where something more easily forgivable, an error in judgment, for example, is the issue, it could be a useful phrase. And it could be a gentle reminder to the person that they have done some crappy stuff also, in their time.

So, yes, it can be use to diminish in an unjust way acts and patterns of behavior in a silly and damaging way.

But it depends on the context.

Sometimes judgmental people expect something rather close to perfection, and using that phrase and staring at that person with one raised eyebrow - as in, you shoplifted when you were a teenager, so don't make it sound like my son should be put down because he did similar stuff.

I wouldn't say the term is necessarily dualistic. I would say it is more saying that while something is not really a thing, it works well, in many situations to think of is as a thing, when in fact it is a batch of things and/or processes or is merely a facet of other things or processes. It is not necessarily claiming there is another substance but rather that its and as if that gets forgotten as an 'as if'

For a starters, no immigration officer anywhere in the world has never asked me or anybody else at the border for any such diagnose. — alcontali

Mental Illness a Barrier to U.S. Immigration?
It's not uncommon for immigrants with a mental illness or mental disorder to be deemed "inadmissible", and barred from entry to the U.S.

and there can be testing by doctors involved, see article.
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/mental-illness-barrier.html
Canada will give you a medical exam and a questionaire in which you must list all illnesses and current medications.
For residency visas to Japan you must describe medications and psychiatric histories.

As some examples. Countries definitely to ask. It is not illegal, they make these laws, being countries.

rom what I’ve read actions like this are not within their norms. — Brett

It was rare, but then perhaps the leader ape's behavior had been rare. Justifiable homicide is fairly rare also, but it still falls inside moral norms. I suppose even the leader's behavior might have been at an extreme end of norms. IOW I think, in general, humans can murder, but not animals. Unless they have been clearly part of devastated societies and they have societies. LIke the elephants that have been raping even Rhinos, but they've come from devastated packs and had no parenting, this due to humans. I think humans, with their ability to coldly calculate long term gains and so on can decide to go outside the norms of the group and murder. I think it can make sense to speak that way about us. Animals - and I give animals more credit than most humans do for being capable of things we are - I don't think have criminals in the same sense we do.

Most societies have justifiable homicide. We'd have to interview that apes. The issue is whether the killing was within their moral norms,(and not ours). Do they think that certain kinds of leadership excess deserve the death penalty.

Can you provide your thoughts about the specific type of change that would allow those with mental disorders or issues to lead a more fulfilling life? — Wallows

Meaningful work, good social connections, time in nature, enough sleep, the lack of stress created by social media are all things that can eliminate the need for medication (or, really, show that the medical model is confused) in many many cases. A great book on the subject is...

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Connections-Uncovering-Depression-Unexpected/dp/163286830X

Some of these solutions are within reach for individuals. IOW those not too poor or overburdened. This group can manage, often, to improve their connections that increase a sense of well being, as long as they do not buy into the chemical imbalance model (you got a broken brain, buddy) of depression and anxiety, for example. There are money related and paradigm related reasons why the psychiatric/pharmacological model is so entrenched despite all its philosopical and scientific weaknesses.

Let's take for example the notion that;

What is good is rational. — Wallows

I have no idea what this means. To me rational is an adjective referring to the process via which one decides or concludes something. One can even rationally decide something that, it turns out, is incorrect. This happens in science, policework, everyday life. Good things would either refer to things that are Good in and of themselves, whatever that means or they are things that are good for someone, from their perspective. To me this is all apples and bicycles.

murder is a human title. And leaders can go too far.

But he was a tyrant according to the title. He was not considered fit. Basically a criminal leader.

And if the art is bad, who cares about the labels? — unenlightened

The art is often bad and I think part of the problem is that people think the verbal thinking aspects of the art are enough. It is a symptom, but also like the phrase 'do over' in a game of chess or something. If you are thinking any move you make can be taken back by calling out this phrase, you will not put as much effort into that move you are going to have to live with. If you think you can make your work meaningful by telling people what to think, you are not going to focus as much on the non-thinky parts of the art. In general. I am sure some do. See, something you know you can or will do in the future can affect what you do now, while making the art and while conceiving of what makes it powerful or beautiful or great.

This works in other ways. Who cares if your golf or tennis follow through is right, if you hit the ball well, you hit the ball well.

Well, if you are not intending to make that follow through what comes before that absent follow through will not be as good.

If the art is good, who cares about the labels? — unenlightened

If the art is good, the artist saying the meaning can and I think will in most cases detract from the art, since it will be seen through a narrower lens. I also think that it is part of the same wave as the NOT paying attention to the sensuous values. If people did not think they were going to make their art work through explaining what it means, they might realize they need to make powerful art in and of itself, and this power will include things that are not related to verbal thinking.

I made these points already and I don't think you addressed them. You're deciding to simply repeat your position, despite the fact that I actually did respond to it, and to not respond to me did give me a chance to reformulate, but hey...why not respond as if I actually said something?

I'll wait for others to chime in. (and yes, my posts were long. I am not expecting you to respond at length or to all my points. But you responded by simply repeating yourself as if I had said nothing.

It seems a far bigger problem to me to see a focus on sexual appeal as a problem--and that's what tends to happen. Any focus on sex/sex appeal/sexual attactiveness/etc. is seen as "objectification" (and usually as "misogyny" etc.) It's disheartening how people let rhetoric like that take hold so that it winds up more or less becomes unquestioned and simply accepted as a norm for an entire generation, to an extent where it even starts influencing the opinions of other generations. — Terrapin Station

This sounds a lot like speech affecting things. IOW if libel cannot cause harm, how can abstract disccusions and writing about objectification be problematic or influencing the opinions of other generations. Or if you allow that presentation of certain ideas can influence opinions of other generations, how would this be a problem, since it cannot be responsible for any behavior. so, some ideas are floating around in some minds, that's not a problem. It certainly doesn't affect you in a problematic way and it cannot be blamed for any behavior since behavior is caused by other things. Just as any harm caused by someone saying that so and so was a rapist in the south of that time was not causal, so ideas about objectification or how women are presented in pornography cannot be causal in any way that causes harm.

Speech doesn't directly cause other actions, or at least it can not be shown to. — Terrapin Station

And presumably writing doesn't either. So, what is problematic about these coming generations having a certain attitude. I suppose you could argue that you dislike these people having wrong attitudes in their minds, but since these wrong attitudes cannot cause harm or behavior, I don't see the problem. (I just realized it almost reads like a kind of dualism - thoughts in a transcendent realm where they cannot be causal (along with words and speech) and matter where harm can take place. Or at least matter where direct causes can happen and verbal communication which cannot be causal.) But perhaps you are feeling empathy for these coming generations, that their minds will have false ideas. But then this cannot be harm. If it were harmful, then saying wrong ideas would be harming people. It would be a kind of weapon, directly causing people to suffer having the wrong ideas in their heads.

If like an accusation of rape, it is actually those who believe it who are the only ones causing harm, then there is no problem with bad ideas, like objectification of women. The problem would be that these future generations DECIDE to believe them. That's where the problem lies. So the actual creation of bad ideas and the spreading of bad ideas is not problematic, in the least.

I suppose I think it is better to call it 'killed'. The group would decide its own morals. And it seemed they decided he was a bad chimp. Harsh democracy in action, potentially.

↪Coben So I can talk about art as long as I am not talking about my own art, or as long as I am not presenting art, or something? Seems a bit arbitrary. — unenlightened

You're treating this like legislation. ('can talk about art') I see the discussion as raising the issue of whether it is a good thing or not.

And also, his OP is NOT him presenting his art by saying what it means. That's not an arbritrary distinction, that is central. His op is in no way telling me what any specific work of art or show means.

I would have thought that the problem is not that the artist says something about their work, but that the work is not worth talking about — unenlightened

To me most works that I love stand on their own. I can spend time with the work as a sensous experience, and then if it is representational, I can mull over the meanings. I think if someone feels the need to explain what is going on in their art, at the place where the art is shown, they don't really trust their artwork. I don't have a rule. I certainly wouldn't come close to banning it or even think of the idea. But the more it happens the more I think it's likely the piece of art itself is missing something.

Of course there could be mixed medium works with words and painting, say. So, yes, there is no clear line. But the more someone tells me what their work means, the less I think they trust it and the less likely, I think, I am going to enjoy their work on several levels. I think it is more likely their work will only make me think. And I think then it is likely that they are not working in the best medium.

I wouldn't want to listen to a piece of music that had a narrator telling me what the song was about. I'd be happy to have lyrics that in themselves are works of art, part of the art, and inside it, and likely in the best art not telling me what the music means, but in creative tension with the music that is also telling me what the words mean.

If I put on a song and it started with a voiceover saying 'in this next piece I will be dealing with male authority figures, using my own father as a metaphor for government....' or whatever, I would be irritated. I can read interviews with the artist, later. And heck, why doesn't the artist trust me to find their work powerful with being told it's secrets.

Further artists are not necessarily the best judges of their art, though they may be about their intentions.

To me it's a symptom. Of course they should be allowed to do it. But I think the more it is done, the weaker the art is and the less confidence the artists have in their work, and further, I think, the less actual love of their medium. They don't trust the medium. So, sure, an artist's statement doesn't mean that the painting next to it is any less great, though I think, actually, it might diminish the experience of people who read the statement before having spent some serious time with the painting. The meaning gets narrowed down to whatever the artist is conscious of and we would, in general, I think, 'see' the meaning we are told is there. My sense is that the feeling one should have an artist statement next to one's art is a symptom of something that will also show up in less interesting art work. And I see this specifically with the mass of abstract modern and postmodern art. See, my earlier long response to the OP for what I mean there and also to see I do love, in fact, many examples of both modern and postmodern art. I just think it opened the doors to people who think art is about verbal thinking in the main, and we have lost something.

He's making a statement about art and how it is presented. The OP is not a work of art with an explanation attached. Those explanations, the artists' statements are next to and about specific works of art. He is doing nothing of the kind.

He is not saying that one should not think about art, he is suggesting something about the act of an artist placing what the work means next to it. It happens to some degree in novels, though extremely rarely. And it is also part of a new trend. It may or may not be a good thing. It may be a symptom.

But his act in the OP has is not in any way parallel to an artist telling us what his or her art means. The OP writer is not presenting us with a work of art.

I think this is a part of a trend towards an aesthetic of ideas. We are suppossed to primarily and often only think when we look at art, rather than also have sensuous facets. A lot of art that is modern or postmodern and then also not so good in terms of the visual experience, but may or may not be interesting in the thinking it provokes. I think this has been a sick trend. I do like many modern and postmodern works of art, but what has happened, it seems to me, is that instead of some of the extremely ugly, abstract versions of this being a contrast or having been made, still, by someone who has skills in design, composition and color (even if these are not used in more tradictional ways) we have people who want to express ideas. Shit, they should write little essays, instead. And I can't stress enough that there are installations and very abstract works and performance art and mroe that I have enjoyed and been impressed by, but this area has now become the center of many galleries and museums. The problem is that much of the earlier versions of this work had power because the contrasted with expectations. They did make us see things differently. They stood in contrast to works with more sensuous qualities. Now they are just to be taken in and of themselves, and most of them cannot bear that weight. They are visually uninteresting, but may or may not be clever mental exercises. It's like every writer decided to write novels in the style Finnegans Wake. Or some minimalist novelist who writes without characters at all. What worked as single experiments by incredibly talented people has now become the mainstream.

And of course they can't help but want to add words to tell you what to think, since they don't have the skills or sensuous aspects in their work to make it a full experience.

They have to give you more thoughts.

I have no rule against artists' statements. I am sure they can work quite well in some circumstances. But the culture of them, I think, is part of this trend toward making people think rather than having a complex sensory experience AND think, after that, and then after the next look and contemplation.

So, What does Scientism actually mean? — Pseudonym

I would use it in a certain way - I don't want to make the claim that everyone does. I would use it to describe the following:
1) It presumes that current scientific knowledge is just about complete, so anything not currently confirmed by science is a probably a detail or footnote at best and can otherwise be ruled non-existent.
2) It assumes there will be no upcoming paradigmatic shifts
3) It does not realize that the term 'physical' is an expanding term, meaning it now covers not only more 'things' but that these things need not have qualities that physical indicated earlier and may have qualities that were not indicated early by that term. IOW it means things/processes now considered real in science, and does not weigh in on substance. It's actually a poor term, now.
4) Those who I would class as believing in scientism act as if all their beliefs are based on scientific research. But this simply cannot be the case. They, like everyone else, have beliefs based on intuition, for example, and they act on these beliefs in the world in ways that affect other people. Note: I am not saying here that science is really just intuition. I am talking about what it means to be human, in situ, in life. We not only have to do this, it is good that we do this. So, it not only a false presentation of oneself in relation to others, but actually it would be a bad idea if they even could live up to it.
5) Those I would class this way to not seem to conflate technology with science, and tend not to be skeptical at all about technological changes. IOW they will often also hurl the term Luddite at people and consider their skepticism about specific technological advances and 'advances' as emotional at base and thus dismissable. This could be anything from gm products, to nanotech, to AI, to more specific applications, to the social and even physical effects of cellphone technology. There is no possible way that industry could be, in their minds, controlling the information related to harm and potential harm. That is they conflate scientific epistemology with what actually happens in the world where power and influence come into play. There is also a kind of if it can be done, it should be done.
6) any good scientist will be aware of uses of and importance of ecological/system effects and interaction the uses of and importance of using reductionistic thinking. Scientism is when the awareness of systems, side effects, interactions, problems of tracking effects, emergent properties etc. are low. Those people have a poor philosophial understanding of such things. Speaking mainly metaphorically they are Newtonian and have blinders even when dealing with extremely complex systems, like brains or ecological systems, say. They think they can get in there and tweak much as we can with a car, a car being a machine we built for specific purposes and something vastly simpler.

I would say that in forums like this one gets a taste of scientism when one finds a team mentality. If one's post seems to perhaps indicate a belief in something not confirmed by science then it is attacked in a category way, rather than in a point for point way. All a post has to do is remind the other poster of something he or she considers unscientific and the battle is on. Of course this attitude (an us vs. them attitude is not restricted to scientism-ists, but is held by -ists of all types.

IOW the goal is to win, not explore, and there is a reaction to apparant opposition rather than a more nuanced reading and response. Ad homs and dismissals without argument can also be portions of this.

And I suppose may be necessary to say that none of this is a criticism of science, nor is it intended to be in the slightest.

So you don't even know what the instruction means? How do you know how to treat your neighbours, the needy etc if you don't even know what "do good" means? And why are you advising people on what their obligations are in society when you don't have sufficient expertise, I thought people just making stuff up based on what they reckon was all "systemless bullshit" to you? Is that what you're engaged in now? — Isaac


As you seem to be interested in particular details of Islam, I was simply referring you to religious scholars who will be more than happy to answer your questions. As I wrote before, Islamic law limits unilateral individual obligations to wider society beyond the extended family to a very reasonable burden. Therefore, if you want something from other people you will generally have to compensate them. — alcontali

Here's the thing...
you first did give a summation of what is expected with a sense that it was complete. When Isaac pointed out that the Koran includes a very generalized obligation to do good to both those near to you in blood, but also those living nearby and then those in need, you eventually refer him to experts. But you should be interested yourself, since you already made assertions as if you did have knowledge, exactly what the expectations in Islam are. Now presented with a quote that seems to extend that obligation, and a nice point about the likely scope of 'do good' by Isaac, you want to pass the issue on as if it is only his concern and not yours. But it would be odd for you not to be concerned that you potentially misrepresented Islam and would also want, yourself, to go to that website and get a more definitive interpretation.

Here, you state that Islamic Law limits unilateral individual obligations to a reasonable burden. But that is a very vague description and does not in any way resolve the issue Isaac is raising. One could have more obligation that you presented in the percentage of income and still not be expected to harm yourself or give yourself more than a reasonable burden. In fact a lot of 'doing good' may present no burden at all. It might even be enjoyable or futher one's own aims withing the community. And one could, for example, if one were rich, easily do all sorts of good things to those in need, since one can have, for example, servants take care of many things less well off people must do on their own. I am not suggesting this is what Islam demands, I am saying that you are writing as if you are making something clear when you are not, and instead of acknowledging that Isaac may well be on to something and that your own knowledge about how you as a Muslim should behave may be problematic, since you are going by heuristics that you have implicitly admitted you do not know are correct, you send him off as if he was the one with the issue.


“A person whose neighbors are not safe from his evil will not enter paradise.”

“A person is not a believer who fills his stomach while his neighbor is hungry.” [which does not include a clause for percentages already tithed]

“The best of neighbors in the sight of God is the best towards his (or her) neighbor.”

And presumably neighbor is taken in the general sense of someone in the community not of the same blood. Not just the Jones' in the house next door.

If this person does not provide us with an objective procedure that allows us to verify his solution, then it is completely in accordance with reason that we do not trust his solution. — alcontali

But the issue is actually whether we trust it more or less than other solutions, including solutions like not trying to change anything. Often we cannot verify solutions when problems are incredibly complex. And so the problem is precisely the same for the alternatives. None of them can be objectively verified, though perhaps one can check portions of the reasoning and some of the assertions made by different proposers of solutions.

I am suprised they can have you committed. Of course I am from the US where it is much harder to get someone committed unless they are violent towards others or themselves.

I just did a quick look at UK policy and it seems like a family member can demand that you be assessed by a doctor. And then you can be detained. I assume you know about your right to a solicitor to fight this and also you can request a independent advocate.

I assume you have a diagnosis, so if your family calls the doctors look in their computers and see a standing diagosis and that's how the process can be rigid.

You're not really asking for advice, but it seems to me if you can manage, in these situations to remain calm, be a real pain in the ass. Request your advocate and the lawyer. Keep pressuring the system calmly and through your representation.

I don't know if you live on your own and work, but if you manage these things, it should be very hard for them to demonstrate that you should have your freedom denied.

You can also demand a second opinion about your treatment from another doctor after certain periods. My guess is doctors would be wary of disagreeing with colleagues, but again, calm, rational, pressuring the system may in the long term pay off.

They have these tribunals to evaluate detentions. If you keep appearing in the tribunals and are calm and rational and have no incidents they can point to - and arguments with family should not be enough - they may get tired of you.

Tire the system out, and don't give them anything that makes them nervous.

So, you are a minor?

I'm not saying the medication is flawed.

I'm saying the law that forces medication (in the UK at least) is flawed. It treats too many cases the same way, and could be improved. There's a wealth of knowledge we're missing - I hoped to change that. — Qwex

I'm not so familiar with the UK system. Was there a crime involved, is that how the compulsion came in? What criteria have to be met for a court to force medication? i assume they must do occasional blood tests.

Is modern psychology flawed? — Qwex

Modern psychology includes hundreds of approaches, different opinions about treatment, diagnosis, causes and more. I would also say it seems like your posts are more concerned with psychiatry than modern psychology in general.

Psychologists pin all mental illnesses on mental malfunctioning. — Qwex

What do you mean by 'mental malfunctioning'.

My argument is that mental illnesses are, most of the time, statistical anomalies. — Qwex

Mental illness could be both mental malfunctionng AND statistical anomolies.

Mental Health laws force medication on some mentally ill people. — Qwex

Though compared to pre-Reagan, not very many. What country are we talking about?

Evidence: antipsychotics target a neuroreceptor called Dopamine.

Evidence: I'm on antipsychotic medication by law.

Partial Evidence: It has done nothing. Try a different one would be psychology advice.

Conclusion: it's a flaw in psychology. — Qwex

You are saying that in your particular case, the treatment you have received, in this case a medication, is not working for you. Unless we are expecting perfection, this does not mean that psychology, or pharmacological treatments for mental illness, is flawed. I mean, I am extremely critical of the current over-medication of people and the general use of the chemical imbalance model for treatment emotional pain and more. But, it seems like you are trying to draw very broad conclusions from a single case. Your own.

Yes, it's an irony I tend to use a legal analogy for 'fruit of the poison tree'.

Fruit of the poisonous tree (objection) is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well.

If res cogitans is unreal or 'less real', then conclusions based on it are even less tenuous. Which should make people laugh, but it tends not to. It's really biting one's mother's teat rather than being grateful.

For example chronic constipation can lead to mental health problems (due a build up of toxins) and some depression is caused by conditions like ADHD and the person recovers by being given ADHD medication. — Andrew4Handel

Though since adhd medications are generally uppers, I am not sure we have solved a problem, but perhaps shifted it down the line.

There have been some strange solutions to mental health problems where the cause was unexpected. — Andrew4Handel

Diet, contact with nature, meaningful work, friends, physical activity, as some examples, have all made incredible changes in the emotional experience of people and not using medication. A great book on the subject is....


https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Connections-Uncovering-Depression-Unexpected/dp/163286830X

What 'physical' comes down to a lot of the time is, 'what science might agree to exist' — Wayfarer

yes, which is fine, but then given the words apparant position-taking on substance, it would probably be good to change the term.

Scientific analysis 'brackets out' the subjective — Wayfarer

Most belief systems start with a default. Then consider this default as not having an onus in the way other defaults do. This is fine if we view such options as generative, and science has generated incredible knowledge, but problematic when it is considered confirmed ontology.

We embody cultural tropes, archetypes, potentialities, and so on, that are beyond the purview of the physical sciences as such (although not necessarily in conflict with them.) — Wayfarer

If 'physical' has no definition, then nothing is necessarily beyond the physical sciences.