Lots of good articulations of the 'purpose' of philosophy.

I came to TPF as a lay philosopher, rediscovering interests I had set aside due to no longer teaching a high school intro to philosophy class.

When I taught said class, I needed to connect to a discipline I had little experience with. So I read a lot - including back issues of "Philosophy Now". Some of it was beyond me, but I found myself drawn to discussions of AI. Fifteen years later, I find so much of that reading validated by what is happening with AI, and how those readings help me understand the issues today.

Which leads me to ask - what questions of an urgent / topical nature today can be best addressed, or perhaps just effectively addressed, with philosophy? Are there discussions on subjects now that will seem just as urgent in 15 years as discussions of AI have proven to be? I would love to hear some predictions, or be pointed towards urgent current topics in philosophy.

Canadian philosopher Joseph Heath noted on his substack that many of his colleagues seem to be 'sitting out' many fraught contemporary subjects. I imagine a lot of TPFers are closer to Heath than myself in terms of contact with this academic world - is he correct about this?

Hi Philosophism, thanks for the reply.

Religions are a great example of group think because most people are not in the religion for clear and rational language. They are there for moral guidance, group and cultural cohesion, and internal desires of how they want the world to be. Rational language alone will not persuade most people out of a religion because they lose so much more than they think they would gain. Usually if you want someone to leave an ideology, its a multi-pronged approach. — Philosophim

Is this form of religion really groupthink? I am a staunch atheist, so I have no skin in this game, but it feels an act of faith differs from groupthink.

Of course, elements of religion are clearly groupthink. But like you said yourself, most people aren't members of religions for 'clear and rational language'.

And most people would see arguing against someone's act of faith as bad form. In situations where it can harm others, sure. On national policy levels, I believe in the separation of church and state. But in private practice?

A clear and rational argument that demonstrates one is not immoral for leaving is very powerful. — Philosophim

I read "Infidel" by Ayan Hirsi Ali in the summer, and she articulates this process powerfully. Although, interestingly, I read she recently converted to Christianity, after a decade and a half of atheism.

Trans ideology has been so effective because it has set itself as a moral one without truly justifying that it is actually moral. — Philosophim

That is not to say that some aspects of transgender ideology are not actually moral. Any good measure of control and manipulation understands that there should be some truth to what one is pushing. Should an adult have the bodily autonomy and right to transition? Absolutely. Just like there are usually good things taken in isolation in any ideology. But what is important is to analyze what an ideology is saying rationally as much as possible without appeal to emotions to be free from the manipulative and prosthelytizing pressures that ideologies put forth. — Philosophim

Right. I think you have a nuanced take on this issue. As far as adults go, I too think 'absolutely', assuming they have been informed of the risks and not pressured or rushed through the process.

With the trans issue, I think we might have a better example of cognitive dissonance in action than we do in the context of religion, or at least the religious beliefs that we generally encounter in WEIRD countries; although the Islam Ali renounced is present in some communities within the WEIRD world, and that produces genuine dissonance as they stakes are so high. And there are similarly fundamentalist communities in other religions.

There is an argument made that 'wokeness' is similar, functionally, to religion. But whatever one makes of this argument, 'woke' certainly doesn't have the centuries of tradition and ritual and shared cultural experiences which may be so much more valuable to the believer than any 'rationality' of belief.

In terms of hormone blockers and gender reassignment surgery, the stakes are pretty high, which seems likely to drive dissonance. Dissonance theory potentially explains the rejection of major challenges to trans orthodoxy - I think of Chase Strangio's war against Abigail Shrier, for example, or dr. Olson-Kennedy suppressing the release of research conducted by her own organization.

I do not believe this is a liberal vs conservative issue. This is a people issue. Politics on either side effectively use what they can to manipulate and convince people that 'their' side is the correct one. The question really is whether it also happens to be that it is more rational to pick one side or the other. — Philosophim

Oh I agree completely. I am just more familiar with progressive examples given that I live in a largely progressive world here in Toronto. I imagine plenty of Republicans, for example, felt cognitive dissonance on January 6th, or when Trump pardoned even the violent protestors from that day. I just didn't really see it.

But in my progressive world, talking to a friend who ran the gay-straight alliance at my last school about the first Muslim-majority city in the US banning pride, I get to see dissonance first hand. As a former progressive myself, I certainly experienced profound dissonance when I started to see some of the sloppy conceptual choices and language you described in your post in the schools I taught at.

I describe myself as a 'conscientious objector' to the culture war, echoing Richard Reeves, and increasingly think a path through the culture war is issue by issue, focusing on the most principled, informed beliefs of both sides of the debate.

Certainly, there are trans people who lost, greatly, personally, from the backlash against certain more extreme ideological stances. I see common ground between the left and right here, (despite being much happier having personally renounced both). Conceptual precision can only help this project.

gender is a personality type of an individual that a person subjectively expects a member of that particular sex to have — Philosophim

A nice, succinct take on the subject.

But once someone has had their eyes cleared and has a way out of cognitive dissonance that does put their moral viewpoint at risk, the clear and definitive language gives them the off ramp that they need. — Philosophim

Do you think the Doomsday cult scenario in which cultists simply 'double down' on a reinterpretation of their initial beliefs is avoidable simply with greater clarity of thought and language? how does one reach a point at which they perceive their moral viewpoint to be 'at risk'?

Have you or anyone read "Mistakes Were Made, but Not by Me"? Truly a book that lived up to the hype.

I am more familiar with progressive rather than conservative thought, given that I live in downtown Toronto and taught high school, but reading "Mistakes" helped me understand why progressive people continue to insist on arguments that appear to be suffering from credibility issues.

I am sure there are equivalent conservative examples, I am just less familiar with them. I feel like I observe, or discuss, 'cognitive dissonance' more in person than I do in consuming media.

Your perspective on social change is insightful, — Athena

Thank you for saying that!

How do we feel at ease with who we are, when our understanding of reality is all messed up? — Athena

This question, or versions of it, seems central to many western conceptions of mental health and mental illness.

I describe the quality of living in our era as 'chaotic' and the experience of it as 'fragmented'. Even relatively agreed upon notions of 'reality' are in retreat. A lack of 'objectivity' or shared 'reality' is part of the declining mental health around us.

I have pessimistic views - there is no meaning in the universe, or my existence - but those are liberating views for me, personally, when I am able to pair them with the choice to continue to exist, despite this meaninglessness. I certainly do not think my views make sense to most others, but it is the clarity of having views again that I so appreciate, a quality shared by those with different, even religious, beliefs.

As we can lack information about how we come to have PTSD, so can we lack the memories that can help us. While replying to you, an important memory that has improved my life for the last 20 years came to my awareness. Maybe we all focus too much on the negative. Does counseling ever encourage good memories? Most of my I have felt love and I think the source of that was my father — Athena

I appreciate you asking me that question. I have long struggled to balance emotional / spiritual / human considerations with reason.

I know humans are predisposed to overly focus on the negative. And yet I do it constantly :(

Being 'present', engaging with 'slow' thinking and relating, can allow space for positive memories to return, when in the past, I have avoided them as triggering.

Over and over again, I come back to the idea of practicing wellness. I have been on long-term disability, and tried treating my days at home as work days, working to confront my mental illnesses and towards better mental health.

But recently I've been trying to think of this practice as practicing virtues. 'Presence' is a virtue that I struggle with, and perhaps the best means I have to combat that overly negative focus.

Committing to this practice of 'mental wellness' virtues every day until 420 pm has been huge for me, after being largely non-functional for years.

I chose to commit to '420' a year ago, as a result of reading philosophy, but reason has to be but one part of restoring balance to my relationship with the world. (Yes, the name 420 started out as a joke, but I am sincere about it now).

Do you or others have 'mental wellness' routines or habits that have surprised or transformed?

It is sadly funny that I am only able to reply infrequently to this thread addressing mental illness due to ... mental illness, but I appreciate the interaction!

This is something necessarily very different from "medical practice", simply because the science deals with generalities and statistics, whereas practice consists of individual relationships. — unenlightened

Hello unenlightened, I agree with you here. I think it entirely worthwhile to keep the limitations of science generally and brain science specifically in clear view. I find the skeptical stance empowering. It is far too easy to differ to external expertise as a person with depression, which can worsen the embodiment of 'learned helplessness'.

I face this problem myself but if I refer to anecdote, I only do so as they are illustrative of a larger population facing the same problems. Being depressed does give me a 'unique' perspective but it by no means makes me an expert. Social media is certainly empowering people to self-identify as experts, based simply on their 'lived-experience' which further complicates the role of 'experts'.

But I do think there are 'experts', as long as we acknowledge that this is a highly speculative discipline, a good portion of which is social science. In the medical context, these 'experts' are confronting issues that are, in addition to biology and heredity, socially and culturally embedded, factors literally beyond their control to address.

But if we overstate the insights 'experts' such as these can offer, we do run real risks, as you outline. And I do think we overstate these insights.

One of the things that often happens in these situations is that the individual in question is so agitated that they hardly sleep for days or weeks, and as a result, the people around them cannot sleep properly either. And so many of the crisis interventions basically address this problem by various tranquillising and soporific drugs. Sometimes one cannot persuade the person to take the drugs, and involuntary treatment occurs. It should though be troubling to all concerned at least — unenlightened

Good point, irregular sleep and other habits are further fuel on the fire of psychosis.

Involuntary treatment is deeply concerning, but I believe it has an obvious role to play in highly specific situations.

In many cases, a forced treatment of anti-psychotics will alleviate the psychotic state. The argument here is that this window provides the opportunity for 'informed consent', and there are plenty of people with schizophrenia who identify this as a positive event for them. This was the case with my brother, but his experiences also involved my family in the schizophrenic community in my hometown. My father ran a support group for family members. My brother had friends with schizophrenia. A lot of people want to try anything to get better. Psychosis can be terrifying.

My brother was violent with my father twice, the first time, we called the police hoping for an involuntary committal and he was able to convince the doctor that he was rational - not uncommon for certain schizophrenics, to be able to produce short windows of rationality during psychosis. He was violent again, committed and then, better, a couple of weeks later.

But he battled side-effects from these drugs the rest of his life. People reporting that they are 'not themselves' when medicated is an enormous concern. Again, just using anecdote to illustrate common issues.

Certainly, you can at least argue that people who have never been medicated are incapable of informed consent?

Also, I think it is impossible to deny that certain mentally ill individuals pose a threat to themselves, and most importantly, to others, and we therefore have a responsibility to involuntarily commit and treat them. The fentanyl crisis and the pandemic have dramatically worsened problems of homelessness, addiction and mental illness in marginalized (and mainstream). I fear a traditional 'due process' approach that made sense prior to the explosion of these problems, and the skyrocketing strain on existing systems, no longer does. There needs to be stronger mechanisms for identifying high-risk individuals and mitigating that risk.

That said, I'd be happy to hear critiques or disagreements!

I have a friend who has been on various psychiatric medications for years, and hasn't been able to get off of them. It seems these medications, from my point of view (and i don't lecture him on it, even though i've gently criticized some of his other drug use) have been assisting in physical degeneration for him, even though he's a very coherent person for me to talk to. — ProtagoranSocratist

There are definitely negative consequences for some psychiatric meds. Weight gain is obvious, but the worst outcomes I've heard described are from people on anti-psychotics who say they 'no longer feel like themselves'.

Johann Hari's "Stolen Connections" talks about the consequences of indefinitely taking meds that were designed as short or medium term, along with the dangers of 'medical-only' interventions. He positions mental illness as tripartite, with heredity, biology and social factors all critical components of mental illness. I agree with Hari here, and think his model points to realms that meds can, perhaps, assist with.

Obviously, plenty of things matter that are outside the realm of medication. It would be insane to argue that a pill can cure trauma, bereavement, alienation.

Does your friend wish to quit meds? Do you see the meds as the cause of his 'degeneration' or are they more a part of a causal whole?

A disability for whom? Where and how do we draw the line between disability defined in terms of the hardships it causes for those surrounding the allegedly disabled person ( as so often happens with ADHD) and their own sense of being disabled? And even with regard to the person’s self assessment, what percentage of it is made on the basis of non-conformity with the dominant culture and what part of it is truly a self-assessment? Would you agree there is a difference between someone born deaf or sightless and someone who develops such conditions as a result of injury or illness? Do you think the former consider themselves disabled in the same way as the latter? — Joshs

Key questions. I think psychosis is a fairly clear dividing line - when an individual is interacting with an environment different from physical reality, responding to stimuli not 'seen' or 'heard' physically, they can become a threat to themselves and others. And this is a 'visible' benchmark, in most cases, at least over time.

So psychosis sets aside issues of, say, non-conformity to me.

I do think there is a difference being born and becoming sightless, and that those groups would, and do, view their disabilities differently. My ex was an 'audio-describer' for the visually impaired, and also worked with some in the deaf community on film projects. She often talked about these identities as 'different' rather than impaired, as do some within those communities - people born deaf who refuse cochlear implants, for example.

But neurodivergence is not a morbidity in a typical sense, so it is unclear what “health” means in this context.

This is entirely fair, I just don't think it captures a full enough picture. Neurodiversity is simply too
broad a category. There is not enough commonality between severe schizophrenia and mild to moderate autism, for example.

I draw a hard line between psychotic and neurotic illnesses myself on these sorts of issues, and think neurodiversity a more valuable concept in the neurotic realm.

Trying to “treat” neurodivergent people by making them respectable citizens who are palatable within neurotypical productivity culture is usually likely to backfire; typically bad for their own well-being, and a social loss. — Joshs

I agree that this can be problematic, but that doesn't mean that some neurodivergent people don't want or need treatment.

I oppose insisting on it. The only 'forced' medication I feel comfortable with is psychotics who pose a danger to self or others.

And possibly addicts deemed threatening, although addiction is a different can of worms.

Can you provide a link to something from DeBoer on this? I'd be interested in reading more. — wonderer1

Hello wonderer,

From DeBoer's Substack. The first is on bipolar disorder, which DeBoer himself battles. He has talked elsewhere quite candidly about the devastating impact his disorder has had on his life and career. The second is more on the media coverage, the issue of 'learning to live' with the voices and such. Number three talks to the pain of those whose debilitating disorders are 'left out' of some conversations.

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/perhaps-you-would-be-a-little-touchy

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/the-new-york-times-remains-utterly

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/who-neurodiversity-left-behind

DeBoer has tons of other great stuff free on his Substack - on Kanye and his bipolar disorder, for example. Given DeBoer's personal connection to mental illness, I think DeBoer on mental illness is maybe DeBoer at his best, although I believe he is more known for his writing on education.

There are obvious "documented positive effects" for alcohol, heroin, and tabacco as well. — ProtagoranSocratist

Are you arguing that anti-depressants have no positive effects? Alcohol and heroin are demonstrably bad for one's mental health. Anti-depressants are not so even if associated benefits are a placebo, is there a problem with taking / proscribing them?

Tobacco is interesting - I've seen studies that suggest smoking is beneficial for the mental health of schizophrenics.

Talk of 'chemical imbalances' is perhaps outdated? I don't think knowledgeable proponents of medication use such language anymore?

the 10,000 foot takeaway there is that there are major risks/issues if psychology and the language of health/wellness come to define ethics and the philosophy of "living a good life" and "being a good person." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is this not already happening? I see some conflation between "living a good life" and "being a good person" already in wellness circles?

Lo' and behold, programs when curricula loaded with texts that claimed that the illusory nature of the individual must be overcome also discovered that it the individual was illusory. And yet, this area later became ground zero for much of the replication crisis, and some of the claims it made for things like "priming" are, in retrospect, the sort of thing that should have rung alarm bells in the same way claims of psychokinesis do. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Very interesting. Jessie Signal's "The Quick Fix" looks at a lot of the issues you are outlining here. Certainly, the idea (as argued in a rather infamous study) that mere exposure to the concept of aging would 'prime' study participants into walking more slowly in a hallway reads closer to psychokinesis than science.

A criticism I'd like to point out here is that psychology, like economics, is not metaphysically neutral. Aside from empirical work, it provides an interpretive lens for how data is interpreted, which is based on ideals dominant in the field. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Greg Lukianoff and Riki Schlott describe a scenario in which male teens seeking counselling were instead provided lessons on 'toxic masculinity', which seems in danger of violating the 'first, do no harm' principle.

I share your skepticism of a philosophical 'gloss' being placed on concepts of wellness. But can you see a role for a robust philosophy helping to 'reign in' the excesses of psychiatry, or other social sciences? In Oliver Keenan's book on Aquinas, I recall him insisting on the value of discrete disciplines, and that if theology is going to offer anything to the other disciplines, it will do so through theology first? Can philosophy take on this role?

Nobody must question the medical model, because it is a scientific model. Scientists are objective and therefore mentally healthy. — unenlightened

This does seem to be a problem, despite psychiatry being in its infancy as a discipline when compared to medical science, or other sciences. Does recognizing the limitations of the medical model address this problem, or do you see the model itself as the problem?

He also appreciated Laing’s insistence that psychosis could be understood as a meaningful experience, rather than simply as a disease process. — Joshs

There are certainly some people who have 'learned to live' with their voices. But generally, when I hear this idea, I am left assuming that proponents don't actually know a lot of people living with psychosis. Not that my experience of friends and family with psychosis is anything more than anecdote, but even if the communication I experienced with my brother was 'meaningful', it was certainly degraded and impoverished when he was psychotic.

I don't think this concept needs to be discarded - I certainly did see 'meaning' in some of my brother's obsessions and paranoid ramblings.

Freddie DeBoer often writes well on this subject. He fears that too often people amplifying 'learn to live with your voices' and other such messages are the most functional representatives of the disability, which can drown out those for whom their autism, for example, is not a 'superpower' but a crippling disability.

I'd have to say that psychiatry is very limited: it's basically just something people use in desperation, and i can't comment on how to properly administer it. You have to get a referral to see a psychiatrist, because MH proffesionals know that talk based therapy is more effective than medicating for a wide range of issues. — ProtagoranSocratist

Talk therapy in conjunction with medication is best practice for neurotic disorders, I believe?

But I'm not sure how quantifiable the benefits of, say, anti-depressants are. There is no causation established, but despite not knowing why, exactly, anti-depressants help, there are clearly documented positive effects. One of the best arguments for an anti-depressant is that it can provide a 'window' of improved functionality. Timed correctly, ideally supported with counselling, a depressed individual can take actions during this window to improve their mental health that would otherwise be unavailable.

But when it comes to psychotic disorders? Medication is hugely important. We have a controversy here in Canada regarded a schizophrenic man, high risk to self and others, paranoid delusions, who was not forced to take his meds (as he had been, previously) and who later killed a number of festival goers with his vehicle while in a psychotic state.

I know that as a population, mentally ill people are at a higher risk of being victims than perpetrators, but that generalization does miss high-risk populations.

Personally, mandated medication saved my schizophrenic brother's life. Obviously, this is a morally complex subject. And the side-effects that Jack references are pretty severe with anti-psychotics, which is another disincentive for high-risk individuals.

Is it morally justifiable to compel psychotics to take their medication? To what degree is a psychotic individual responsible for their actions?

To what extent is psychiatry able to look at subjective experiences of suffering and how does philosophy come into the picture of such understanding? — Jack Cummins

Great question Jack, I have been wondering this for some time. I studied psychology at uni and taught it in high school for years, but have only recently begun to explore philosophy.

I was reading Oliver Keenan's "Why Aquinas Matters Now" this afternoon and started to think that cultivating 'virtues' like prudence, fortitude and temperance in a therapeutic / clinical setting was sensible. There seem countless fruitful applications, to be honest. Any that spring to mind as most obvious to you?

I can't help but thinking that a 'philosophical' approach to counselling might feel more substantial or accessible to a certain subset of people who might need / want counselling but who are suspicious of the affirmative, empathetic approaches most associated with counselling?

I've always felt that my psychiatrists were on the same treadmill that my internist, orthopedists, or dermatologist were on. — BC

Well put. This certainly characterizes my experience with a psychiatrist over a year's worth of counselling at CAMH here in Toronto. Appointments with him were less frequent than those with my psychologist, but my psychologist was the one who benefitted me, likely due to the time constraints on him but less so upon her.

It seems like we tend to talk about "mental health" as an absence. I haven't heard people say "she is really mentally healthy" — BC

Good point. There is conflation with poor mental health and mental illness as well. For the concept of 'mental health' to be effective, it seems it would have to shine light on both ends of the spectrum. It's almost as if good mental health is considered the default, which is clearly not the case.

Philosophy comes in handy here to explain some of the glaring contradictions humans exhibit, and for generalizing about how contradictory we are as a species, with our often uncoordinated and/or contradictory cognitive and emotional traits constantly screwing things up for ourselves. — BC

It feels to me as if that 'handiness' isn't being deployed as much on the subjects of mental health and mental illness? Or am I missing something?

I see references to 'philosophical counselling' in therapeutic fields, but I am not sure if this is psychology with a philosophical gloss or a substantial philosophical project?

Does anyone know more about 'philosophical counselling'?

I think I should check out "When Madness Comes Home" because of the problems my family is dealing with. — Athena

I just ordered another copy to share with my tenant whose parents both face psychosis, having given my previous copy away. It's one of those books that is easy to pass on, given how powerful it can be for the right reader. It does deal with 'psychotic' mental illness, whereas PTSD is 'neurotic', but it is a powerful exploration of 'caregiver burden'.

Especially when we are struggling to keep our sanity and don't know why, or we may have a child who is struggling to cope with something that should not have happened. — Athena

Something happened along the way to our society - we became much more willing to acknowledge the existence of mental illness, but also more likely to assume it requires a technocratic solution - see the right expert, get the pill, pursue the correct therapy, take the right actions - illness cured!

But it's more nuanced than that, and previous social institutions that helped people manage trauma - church, community, family, professional life - have declined in significance.

I support anything that empowers the individual, and finding a name for a disorder that helps them understand their illness, and then learning about that disorder, can restore the sense of agency necessary for healing.

The 'not knowing why' we ourselves struggle, or the problem of evil that we face with a child facing terrible challenges, are enormous obstacles to healing.

The world has changed so much in the last 60 years. I was horrified by the belief that parents could divorce or families could move, and the children would adjust. — Athena

We lost touch with the obvious - humans evolved the way we did, with helpless infants who remain vulnerable / immature until their early 20s - because two parent families allowed for this beneficial formative stage.

Given the dominance of woke thinking over topics such as family structure, it is now viewed as judging groups with high rates of family disintegration to talk about these consequences, or unsympathetic to the plight of abused women, etc.

Good intentions, noble causes, but we need to be able to talk about the consequences of these breakdowns as well. As a former teacher, this is particularly acute with boys, and clearly noted in the data.

In my day, it was wrong to cry or to be unhappy. This wasn't just so for me, but my friends also experienced this. I think the Great Depression and war contributed to the demands that our children be as brave soldiers. — Athena

This is still true for men of my generation (recently past the half century mark), and probably still true for younger men, teens and boys. We talk often about 'toxic' masculinity without acknowledging that it is men and women both raising boys to be like this.

change how I talked to myself or the story I was telling myself. — Athena

CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy)? I have had experiences with CBT, and it has helped me and many others.

You were in a cast for an entire year? Of course that's impacted your mental health and emotional development, laying the groundwork for mental illness.

The first counsellor I ever had was terrible. No sense of humour (she told me her name was Shelley, to which I quipped, that's the name of the girl that brought me to you. She did not laugh). Always yawning. And yet, 10 sessions in, out of the blue, she asked, have you experienced many losses? I was around 30 years old. My roommate in uni had recently died, and my closest friend in HS had committed suicide, which triggered my brother's latent schizophrenia.

I am 30, with all these losses, had studied psych in my undergrad and I had NO IDEA that these traumatic events could be impacting my daily life.

And you know the PTSD story, which came a decade later when my schizophrenic brother ODed and died. And yet it took me seven or eight years after his death to realize that I had developed PTSD after learning of his death.

Again, I use anecdote here to illustrate a broader trend. MANY people have unaddressed trauma (or unresolved issues of other sorts).

We have names for these conditions now, and powerful models to try to understand them with. And yet we have no language or norms to address these conditions collectively or socially.

Before I came to the right event, the counseling experience was a problem. It is kind of like having a gall bladder removed when that is not the problem. — Athena

I always find it interesting to consider the changes to therapy over the decades. I have a friend in her mid 70s who experienced treatments that I had considered crazy like electroconvulsive shock therapy (which didn't work for her agoraphobia or OCD, but DOES work to this day for treatment-resistant depression).

She attributes her 'cure' to a moment when a group of doctors confronted her and tried to trigger her anger, and after doing so, pronounced her cured. And she was! Her OCD dissipated as did her agoraphobia.

Neither of these approaches would be considered good practice today. Regression therapy, recovered memories - these too are tainted approach given associated scandals where the concepts were used to generate false positives.

And yet these techniques too have proven powerful, even essential, to many sufferers.

I am glad you found the right person to support you, and ideas that helped you craft stories that provide you with agency and understanding.

Do you still have a counsellor? I intend to return, after a long lapse driven by despair.

Ironically, it was philosophical insights that helped me drag myself out the void, which helped me identify the act of choosing as the only path forward (for me) in a universe I perceive as 'meaningless'.

I guess I believe that there are many meaningful paths to take in dealing with mental health and illness.

Sorry for the length of my posts!

I see on this site every day, a sometimes frantic defence of rationalism, as if logic and science can tell us how to live. This is a profound madness that denies trauma in an escape to imagined invulnerability. — unenlightened

Well put unenlightened.

The essence of trauma is overwhelming unbearable feelings, that have to be locked away from consciousness, and this results in a splitting of oneself into the one who copes, and the unacceptable one who cannot cope. The irony of this is that the one who is coping every day is the one that cannot cope with the trauma that the locked away unacceptable self is living with in secret. — unenlightened

I agree with most of what you say here, although I don't think of consciousness and subconsciousness
as falsifiable. Freud succeeded in turning our attention towards inner psychological processes that we are unaware of. But he failed in articulating what these processes are and how they operate.

Which makes sense, given how psychology is a relative infant in terms of other disciplines, and the amount of processes we are now aware of in the brain that Freud had no idea about.

If 'the body keeps the score' than the body is perpetually aware of the subconscious, for example. I don't conceive of the 'mind' as distinct from the body myself. I am sure I am missing some easy terms and references here - I'm a layperson in philosophy, better versed in the social sciences.

But the concept of two selves, the 'unacceptable one' unable to cope with trauma, is significant still. I fear in our rush to define human existence as constructed, we have diminished the concept of our animal, evolutionary selves. The emotions, which respond to trauma, are serving an adaptive purpose.

If we can better understand our emotions, we can fear them less, and gain control and agency over them. I feel it is this lack of agency, derived from lack of understanding and competency, that leads to this 'splitting of oneself'.

People who think they can cope are the most dangerous; because their feelings are locked away, they are capable of anything. So I want to say to you all, that if you are feeling traumatised, if you are feeling fragmented, if you are hurt and cannot cope, then you are the fortunate ones, who have not lost all contact with their feelings. Treasure the pain of the human condition, and do not lose your humanity. You are the rightful leaders of society, who lead spiritually and in practical service. — unenlightened

But some people can and do cope more effectively! Some people do experience profound trauma, think they can cope, and then do so. Belief in one's ability to cope is essential to the act of coping.

I certainly find myself trusting people who have experienced trauma, or life challenges, more than those who haven't, simply because of my bad luck having multiple traumatic losses over the past fifteen years. People who have experienced trauma are generally more comfortable talking about it, acknowledging it and accommodating it.

Although I also find the traumatized to be challenging to be around, due to all the negative traits associated with trauma - problems with emotional regulation, substances, etc. Challenges I have battled myself, and continue to battle, which again make it cognitively resonant for some to 'turn a blind eye' to trauma. I use myself merely as anecdotal evidence of a broader trend, not to exonerate past bad actions. I frequently find myself thinking about concepts of 'moral luck', free will and moral responsibility when it comes to issues of mental illness.

Trauma is an existential challenge for our age.

I find myself asking, do we need new means of considering morality, in an era in which our humanity is increasingly 'fragmented' by screens?

On the one hand damaged parents are more likely to damage their children all unwilling, and on the other, epigenetics have been shown to be affected by trauma and passed down at least one generation. — unenlightened

Hey unenlightened. I certainly agree with the epigenetic take, that's the contentious stance in some psych circles. Gabor Mate takes flak for arguing this stance, but I imagine it's just hard to prove, rather than a flawed take. Have you read him?

What excites me most about your post is the possibility of dropping our religious notions and working with a more scientific understanding of our creation and existence. I think the proof of evolution is solid, with no doubt that we are evolved animals. — Athena

Cool! Sam Harris has an interesting book advancing a scientific approach to morals, 'The Moral Landscape'.

When it comes to our emotional lives, I value evolutionary psychology. Emotions are selected for because of the benefits they bring us. That's another of those insights I wish I'd had years back. The anger I always struggled to control was teaching me something important. My fear of anger (and, later in life, my fear of sadness) blinded me to the insights these emotions could have provided.

The idea of 'apes with PTSD' is further evidence of environment impacting the mind.

I know you've had bad experiences with religion, but I don't think we can simply dismiss religion entirely, despite being an atheist myself. John Gray has convinced me that many of our modern liberal values are grounded in Christian belief, for example.

I guess I look at religion as philosophy, rather than any sort of divine commandment.

"Thinking Fast and Slow" — Athena

I've been inspired to consider virtue ethics by conversations here on TPF, and have been reflecting on the virtues I'd like to cultivate personally. Kahneman's book got me considering "slow thinking". It isn't a virtue per se ... carefulness? Presence?

PTSD can lead to what we might call acts of evil. — Athena

I often reflect of free will and moral responsibility in the realm of mental health. My brother was schizophrenic and, several times while in the throws of psychosis, he acted violently towards our dad or some of our friends.

That is unambiguous to me - he is largely NOT responsible. But PTSD, depression, anxiety - these conditions are not breaks from reality, but rather, complications. To me, a violent reaction under the effects of PTSD is perhaps minimized in terms of moral responsibility, but the individual is still responsible. Same with addicts. Alas, this kind of thinking can easily become a slippery slope.

When I learned of PTSD, it was one of the best days in my life because the chaos in my mind was changed — Athena

A LOT of people have similar reactions, regardless of the diagnosis. It's powerful to have a name, a body or research to pursue, established approaches for dealing with the condition, etc. I felt 'the chaos in my mind' was alleviated by reading "The Myth of Normal", "It's Okay that You are not Okay" (on bereavement) and "When Madness Comes Home" (on the caregiver burden facing families of those with psychosis).

The more I think on this, the more urgent the need to take action, seems to me. — Athena

100% agreed. And yet, I don't see anything, anywhere, targeting the COVID generation students as a cohort. I grew to detest the expression "the pandemic was hard on all of us", innocent though the speakers intent may have been.

It was harder on the more vulnerable. Children, at a critical developmental phase unlike anything in adulthood, are 'more vulnerable'. Closing schools as long as we did was THE moral failure of the pandemic.

You have had positive experiences with regression? That's another of those 'contentious' concepts in psych. I know it has been used negligently in some cases, people being regressed to experiences they did not have, leading in some cases to severe consequences for others.

But I also know many people have benefitted. Can you talk more about your experiences? I don't think I've ever talked to someone who has been 'regressed' before!

The woke had snuck their coolaid well into the water supply for 30 plus years — Fire Ologist

I just read Orwell's "The Road to Wigan Pier", written in 1936. His descriptions of the contempt the bourgeois display towards the working class was remarkably resonant - I think the trends you are describing go back much further. I can think of myriad examples in American movies (I like horror) of working class / rural people terrorizing the middle class. It's all part of the same stew.

Have you seen the interaction between Trump and Carney in the Whitehouse this week? — Fire Ologist

Parts of it. Plenty of coverage here. The most consistent take is that it's 'humiliating' for Carney, but that Carney is playing the right cards. I don't know why Trump seems to like him more than other leaders, tbh.

He is doing a lot of good, and many just refuse to see it. — Fire Ologist

If the peace in Gaza holds, that's a major win. He has certainly restored some semblance of non-partisanship in certain sectors, some universities, etc. He has normalized opposition to open-door immigration. But the DOGE fiasco is / has killed people reliant on medical funding, for example. I imagine more consequences - from say, mass firings - will reveal themselves over time.

Four years of unanimous conviction of Trumps “Russian collusion” and then unanimous “Hunter Biden’s laptop didn’t exist and was more Russian misinformation” - the press sucks. — Fire Ologist

Yeah, mainstream press has zero credibility overall. Individual journalists continue to do good work, but the rise of DEI departments divided the young from the old and choked out dissenting voices. Major corporations, being risk-averse, just go with the flow. Interesting about Bari Weiss at CBS eh? That feels like a good example of the pendulum swing you describe.

I think the worst proponents of “that forced binary choice on moral issues that I think is fueling the worst of the culture wars” comes more often from proponents of woke liberalism. — Fire Ologist

Agreed. The conservatives I know will mock / dismiss lefty points I might make with glee, but they won't judge me evil for making them.

We need to struggle through how to deal with it, but I don’t think I will ever be convinced that government censorship or force of law should have very much place in any management of the shitstorm social media creates. I just know what the UK is doing is utter unjust. — Fire Ologist

It's the addictive nature that governments could address, or the monopolistic nature of these huge corporations. We haven't been able to post Canadian news on FB for several years now, as Zuckerberg battles our attempts to regulate social media. That's the scary part - these companies are more powerful than states, and we have almost no choice but to participate in online life.

Frankly, I'd like to see governments protecting individual rights to NOT have to interact via devices.

“The power of free speech is in the simplicity of it. Once you start qualifying it, free speech ceases to exist.” — Fire Ologist

That's better, I like it!

I don’t think there is anything compromised by choosing the lesser of evils between an inevitable winner. That literally describes me in the polls every time I vote - I pick who I think might screw up and piss me off and hurt my family the least. Who might, because chances are they likely are going to hurt me. I have never voted for a candidate I thought was really good. — Fire Ologist

The thing I fear most around tribalism is that these tribes - perhaps woke most egregiously - are now more virtual, less local. The tribalism is accelerating the sense that people communicate with those who share their beliefs online, and I fear breeding suspicion in more local interactions.

It certainly feels like people are more suspicious of one another in person than it did even 10 years ago. Online norms are being downloaded IRL.

At the end of the day, my dislike of woke starts with the fact that wokeness seems to breed suspicion in others. How could it not, if we are hypothetically all guilty of subconscious bias, all pawns of invisible, machiavellian systems of oppression? When truth is relative and objectivity to be feared?

I just sucks to feel strongly about the truth in a world of sheep who care only about consensus — Fire Ologist

100%.

Cheers man.

You've linked a book here. I am not going to buy and read a book to try to find evidence for you. — Mijin

my bad, I was trying to link to my review of the book, written by the author of the links I posted. Those links are what I encourage you to read.

The people that whined about trans people choosing their own pronouns don't give a toss about people being deported, defunded, fired, imprisoned etc on the basis of their political views. — Mijin

Yup, I agree, and have written as much throughout.

I object to violations of free speech rights on both sides of the political spectrum. If you don't live in the US, why are you defaulting to their oppositional binary?

If you care about free speech, you oppose all violations.

Personally speaking, I was cancelled from my teaching job for playing a hiphop song, which essentially destroyed the rest of my life. That's a left-wing offense against free speech. There are millions of other examples.

If you are genuinely open to changing your mind, you should be able to conjure a solitary example of your differing from woke orthodoxy.

It appears to me that you cannot?

Another good article by Love, this time a personal narrative of her own family trauma.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/my-grandparents-trauma-is-in-my-blood/

She notes this concept, inherited trauma, is contentious, but it sure resonates intuitively. Events like the Cultural Revolution of the Holocaust were grand enough in scale to have shaped future generations.

What effects from the pandemic might we anticipate from a generation that shared this trauma? Are certain epochal traumatic events more or less impactful? Why?

Back in the day of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, you know, they had to be dealing with PTSD — Athena

I assumed yes and googled examples. First result was "Athenian soldiers witnessing the Battle of Marathon in 490 B.C.". Second was 'shell-shock' in WW1. People disputed the existence of that. I think we have examples of PTSD from history, but perhaps not a recognition of it as a state the way there appears to have been historical understanding of 'depression' or 'heartbreak'.

I really enjoyed this article by Shayla Love, who writes with real empathy and insight on issues of mental health and illness.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-relatable-emotions-of-depressed-people-from-3000-years-ago/

“If Depression continually falls upon him, he continually sighs, he eats bread and drinks beer but it does not go well for him, then says, ‘Oh, my heart!’ and is dejected, he is sick with Lovesickness; it is the same for a man and a woman.”

Could be me, today, but this was written on stone tablets in cuneiform 3000 years ago.

Love's article also touches on historical examples of OCD and phobias.

Mental illness exists in animals, who can 'learn helplessness' - a state resembling severe depression.

I worry that our modern technocratic society is fixated on 'medical' considerations in mental illness, rather than the profoundly, universally human (animal?) nature of these forms of suffering, that has biological, psychological and social causes.

I do not feel good about the future of almost all of my family members. — Athena

I am very sorry to hear this.

Conversation and community can help, as can counselling. When my closest friend in high school killed himself, the people around me, and myself, were paralyzed into inaction, because our norms couldn't process Ryan's choice. Whatever the solutions, suffering should not be 'a private matter', nor a source of shame. I say that morally, but plenty of data supports this take.

for me, not knowing anything about PTSD, I went through a short period of thinking I was possibly possessed by Satan. — Athena

Terrifying.

Suffering seems a human universal. “Even if the symptoms get organized slightly differently, or the labels are slightly different from one time period or place to the next, I think it’s important to show how old our experiences are,” Al-Rashid said. “There are these common denominators in our experiences of mental distress that have always been there. And a lot of people say it makes them feel less alone.”

Bottom line- with no idea of what PTSD is, our beliefs and expectations can be very problematic. — Athena

We DO have some idea what PTSD is - a hyper-attenuated fight-or-flight response, activated and problematic due to unexpected / severe trauma.

The further we go from this starting point, the more abstract the concepts become. Does 'generational trauma' lead to PTSD, or is this best described with different language?

Do you have texts / authors / counsellors that have helped you? I sure hope you have gotten more support than a 'possession' diagnosis!

I agree with Al-Rashid and Love, in that greater knowledge of the universality of these experiences, greater understanding of the conditions themselves, can reduce individual suffering. Or, at least, they did for me!

Does anyone on TPF have experience with philosophical counselling? I have only recently heard the term, but it makes sense to me, and I am seeing it mentioned more often.

Glenn Loury is quite an inspiring person, as he earlier in his life had fumbled up, had gone to prison, yet then did make an academic career and ended up as an professor of economics. — ssu

Good point ssu. I wish his 'redemption' was more typical, more available to more people. Certainly, people who have made massive mistakes in life can bring unique insights to good-faith efforts made today!

Actually the US needs these kind of academics who engage in public discourse. — ssu

Great guests too ... Coleman Hughes, Wilfred Reilly...

Any recommendations for older episodes to watch, other thinkers to recommend operating in this mode?

You misunderstand me. It is principled, and I seek actions consistent with that principle. My principle is in response to the infringement of free speech (and free assembly and association) by the government, through legislation and force — Fire Ologist

Sorry!

I agree with you that government, representing all citizens, needs to be held to a higher standard.

I do see a lot of repetition of the 'private companies' line, and while this IS true, it is also true that some private companies are simply currying favour.

This was my main problem with institutions all going woke a few years ago.

You’ve said, not in so many words, “hypocrisy” as I am “hammering on about” “justifications of abuses” and tainting my own integrity. — Fire Ologist

I was only commenting on my own ham-fisted responses ... I struggle to manage my emotions to my liking on this topic, and find myself being curt or harsh without meaning to ... so my bad. I do not mean to suggest hypocrisy in you. I am the one hammering on here, not you, and not out of sense of rightness or anything. More a despairing kind of hammering.

So what Brendan Carr (FCC chair) did to ABC/Disney was an attack on free speech. It was akin to government making a law and seeking to enforce a shut down of what ABC was broadcasting. — Fire Ologist

Agreed.

this conflict between Kimmel and ABC is not the same conflict as between ABC and the government. — Fire Ologist

I still agree. But here I note that this is part of a broader movement. Plenty of journalists / comedians / etc. are saying things that people disagree with now, but which are things that people were fine with even a few years ago. This is the problem to me.

It can be construed as part of the culture wars. It likely is, although it is also entirely possible that Colbert, to switch hosts, was cancelled simply because he was costing the network money.

This leads to the same problem I read about in 1992 in my psych 100 text with affirmative action. Recipients were likely to doubt themselves in the context of affirmative action.

It is too easy to assume that punishing Kimmel in the moment is opportunistic, rather than principled, even if it is principled. In some cases, the moral urgency of the issue outweighs this concern, but not for Kimmel.

If we infringe on this right of employers, we are limiting freedom for all people, not protecting rights. Government laws to stop employers from firing regardless of contract would be the end of free speech anywhere. — Fire Ologist

Again, I agree, I just argue that context matters. I think as a Canadian I just have a different perspective. If you want to participate in politics as an American, you (hypothetical you), are forced into a binary choice.

It is that forced binary choice on moral issues that I think is fueling the worst of the culture wars.

But since when do we want to force employers to continue to pay people whose public displays can make the company look like assholes too? — Fire Ologist

We definitely don't. But missing in this discussion is the existence of these new public spaces - social media, amplified by the smart phone - that older norms are not equipped to handle.

Of course, objectively, these are 'public' spaces. But they were not conceived as such in the way they have become. Anyone can say one thing in the wrong way, on the wrong day, and have their life changed - even ruined - forever. This has a fear-generating effect, which in part explains the rise of woke. (Too big a topic to cover here, but this is Richard Hanania's argument for why corporations went woke - risk aversion).

I don't even know where to start with this topic. Screen-based existence if altering our lives more profoundly than any technology since, uhh, fire? Nobody was carrying printing-presses around in their pocket in Gutenberg's day.

And the moral systems that dominate - liberal era utilitarianism and deontology - are not flexible or fast enough to process our new world.

Adaptive norms that stabilized societies for generations no longer work the way they are expected to.

Sorry, I am very far off topic here.

Again, sorry for implying hypocrisy - I do not see hypocrisy in your statements. I do think it is pragmatic to consider more than just legal obligations between employer and employee. And that, ultimately, some of those fired should have been fired, and some should not have.

Now I'm exploding my own credibility in terms of 'principles' like free speech. But that's why free speech is such as useful principle - the 'letter of the law' is far too complex. The power of free speech is in the simplicity of it. Once you start qualifying it - no hate? what's hate? whose hate definition? Incitement?

We have those qualifications here in Canada, and I see the advantage that exists clearly with the streamlined US version. Trudeau wanted to make 'thought crime' illegal. Terrifying.

But are you going all woke on me in your tactics? Et tu? Am I a hypocrite with no integrity who parrots talking points, or just another citizen trying to think for himself? — Fire Ologist

No chance! "Thinking for oneself" IS free speech embodied.

While on the topic, can you think of other norms on which to build non-partisan consensus that rival 'freedom of speech' in terms of possible utility? I could see norms limiting corporate interests influencing government, the think-tanks, the McKinsey influence, lobbyists. Should corporations be 'citizens' in terms of free speech?

It feels like I am moving to the premise of 'issue-based politics'. Can I call this heterodox? I have renounced the political spectrum and party affiliation. I have only voted once in 5+ years, for a candidate I know from his years knocking on doors in my hood, chatting with me on issues. He recommended "Left is not Woke" to me.

I guess he is part of my tribe (despite his membership in a party I no longer believe in)? People I perceive as aspiring to be good and acting on those aspirations, at personal cost? Does choosing a 'side' not mean compromising your beliefs on specific issues? What 'sides' remains to me? Those 'condemned to be free'?

BTW Jeremy Murray do you appreciate now why the 1% figure was not a number plucked from nowhere; it was an attempt to weigh up the attacks on freedom of speech, leaning towards being generous towards the MAGA side. — Mijin

Sorry man, I still don't. I included five links that are contrary to your generalization, two articles from John Turley who wrote this exhaustive review of free speech and rage politics in the US in 2024.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/199897939-the-indispensable-right

My links aren't long - why not consider them?

I know I don't know anything about you but your posts. I can't 'know' anything about your motivations, personal reading habits, etc. But it sure seems like you live in an information bubble. Prove me wrong - which conservative / heterodox / anti-woke thinker(s) do you agree with? On what issues?

I mean, this is also me attributing positive intent to you. If you don't see something, how can you act upon it? It seems your intentions are positive. If you are 'guilty' of anything, it is a crime of omission rather than commission.

It was only when i stepped outside of my own bubble and began pursuing conservative and heterodox voices alongside the liberal and progressive voices I was immersed in that I began to see the excesses of the left.

The excesses of the right were highly visible to me and they seem to be to you. I paid a terrible price for my awakening - cancelation, mental illness, despair.

As a teacher though, I felt the debt owed to young people to receive information from across the political spectrum outweighed my debt to 'my tribe'.

On issues like trans affirmation, two-tier policing and prioritizing, in some ways/cases, immigrants over citizens, affirmative action and the costs to 'white adjacent' groups like Asians (everything about that sentence is crazy), the explosion of anti-semitism, etc. - it is entirely plausible, in fact, perhaps as far as your 99% certainty, that 'woke' will have gotten some of these issues wrong, therefore 'harming' the very groups woke asserts to empower.

I continue to wrestle with morality, finding moral systems that make sense. Only one fundamental principle has emerged for me - meaningful morality needs to be resonant with the children we raise. Not prima facie, but with instruction, mentoring, modelling. Transmissible through ritual and story, through family and community.

I see young people everywhere struggling with a morally incoherent universe. What we are doing is not working for our generation, but worse, it seems to be harming the next ones.

I believe that if you are as certain of the moral urgency of your beliefs as you appear, that you have a responsibility to stress-test your thinking.

I see no evidence of you doing this. Further, I see no evidence of anyone woke doing this. To do this, in fact, seems judged a sin in the eyes of woke.

Refusing to consider alternatives seems antithetical to philosophy.

He also believes one law for all. — AmadeusD

Trump does not believe this.

I mean, he thinks he can shoot people in public and get away with it. He can 'grab em by the pussy' because he is famous. Pardons for the violent fringe of the Jan 6 insurrection.

He wants a secure border, to deal with crime, reform spending — AmadeusD

Okay, fine, he is consistent with expressing things that ALL PEOPLE want.

Expressed in ways inconsistent with his previous platforms and beliefs.

Things inconsistent with his own actions for the decades he has spent in the public eye.

I was rewatching old Wrestlemania's on Netflix while cleaning today. Vince McMahon loves Trump. He gives him mic time. The man's moral hypocrisy back in like, 1993, was proof of what I'm talking about.

I'm unsure there's a good argument for him being a sort of hollow actor. Just a bad one. — AmadeusD

It feels you have a problem with what other people are saying. What I am saying about Trump is accurate. Perhaps you don't know enough about this subject?

And what is happening in the UK is unbelievable to me. — Fire Ologist

dozens of police interventions in speech daily? Yeah, mind-boggling. Pro-woke commenters here on TPF, from the UK, unaware of this? Evidence of dystopia now.

Is that the one when they are speaking about Thomas Sowell? I think I heard of Loury. — Fire Ologist

McWhorter and Loury do a monthly non-paywall chat about 'black' issues, and it's always great. They did a talk on Sowell, but you can go back years with those two for good conversations. The Glenn Show.

I agree there may have been some injustice in the firing of many of those people.

But that said, all of that firing was in the private sector, and people get fired for all kinds of reasons. — Fire Ologist

I keep hammering on about moral principles, and free speech absolutism is one. Don't make any justifications of abuses of that principle aligned with your 'tribe' or you open yourself up to accusations of hypocrisy. The spike in firings was political, even if in some individual cases it may have been justified.

It's a conservative talking point. You may believe it sincerely, you might be right substantively, but that's the danger of binary tribalism. I assume good faith, but if I believe you are compelled to 'pick a side', that taints my impression of your integrity.

I mean, that's the problem with affirmative action, right? It sits wrong with human moral decision making. Decades of evidence of this. Yet another reason to doubt woke - psychologists told us
decades ago that it was causing cognitive dissonance for the people it was supposed to help

My free speech beliefs are protecting those nazis marching down mainstreet, protected by Jewish lawyers, back in the early 80s.

Woke took advantage, and went to far with the poor Trans people (who are all pawns now). — Fire Ologist

National paper here in Canada with a front page story on the abandonment of 'de-transitioners'. They certainly believe they were pawns. Great to see this getting covered. It's tip of the iceberg on trans issues, the primary weakness of woke.

Athena, I've been hoping to see a thread here on PTSD or mental illness generally. I came back to philosophy later in life searching for answers to questions of mental illness, mental health and morality.

It seems to me that philosophy doesn't seem to offer much on these topics? I am a lay philosopher, and sure I am missing something, so recommendations from anyone would be appreciated!

Personally, I know there are other causes of PTSD. I was born without a left hip socket and put in a body cast at age one. I did not have the vocabulary to record this experience with words, — Athena

How has this experience shaped your life, your sense of self?

Gabor Mate's "The Myth of Normal" starts with early trauma, his experiences as an infant separated from his family during the Nazi occupation of Hungary. The experience shaped his entire life, and forms a key touchstone in his book.

At this time in history, we seemed to think only soldiers had PTSD — Athena

This is why I was so 'surprised' to realize I had PTSD. It was, in retrospect, obvious. I could tell my body was experiencing a 'fight or flight' response. But because my 'trauma' was the death of my brother, who had battled schizophrenia to a draw for decades, only to succumb to an overdose - and not a visceral, present 'trauma' in the sense of a soldier, it did not occur to me - nor to anyone around me, despite my years of experience with counselling, as a patient and in the trenches as a high school teacher - that I had PTSD.

If I'm recommending Mate, I am already positioning myself outside of the ranks of the DSM-5 crew. I do view psych as having scientific grounding, it's just such a young discipline, and the topic is so vast, I hesitate to call it hard science.

Is it safe to argue that we are, in the WEIRD world at least, facing a mental health crisis, in particular with young people? If so, what light can philosophy shed on these topics?

People treated each other as horrifically in the past as they do now. The gap between the wealthy and thre destitute has existed at all times — Patterner

Oh no doubt. But the premise of 'improving one's lot' wasn't the same. The certainty of 'God's plan' was stronger. Etc.

if self-loathing is a new thing for us, is there a new good thing to balance it? — Patterner

I don't think self-loathing is the opposite of self-esteem. People have despised themselves forever. But this idea of self-esteem, of needing to 'love oneself', to affirm every child as 'special', a person's 'journey' - these are new concepts, and part of the Narcissism epidemic Twenge describes.

I think 'the new good thing' would be a return to 'old good things' like community, humility, faith (ironic, given how staunchly atheist I am), etc. Stories with as much moral complexity as "Northern Exposure", even though I link that show, tangentially, to the narcissism epidemic.

Do you see a 'narcissism epidemic'? Do you see a link with self-esteem? What 'new good things' do you think may benefit us?

I had myself a breakdown a few years ago, and so this thinking of mine is new to me as well.

DEI and wokeism has always been more of a moral system, or religion, than a political/legal/practical system. Woke does not need to use reason or debate to persuade and coerce. And in fact, anyone who doesn’t just get it and accept the proclamations of DEI, must be deficient and incapable of reason anyway - like a sinner. That is the only clarity - they are certain of what is evil. — Fire Ologist

I do view woke as a secular 'religion'. John McWhorter's "Woke Racism" is great on this issue - he refers to the leaders as "The Elect" - a self-appointed priestly class. Talks about the rituals (land acknowledgements), the genuflecting, etc.

McWhorter is essential on the subject of woke - a gentle, genteel, witty and insightful liberal, a musical theatre enthusiast, a black man who has condemned wokeness as racist, a 'tyranny of low expectations'. I really enjoy listening to him in conversation with Glenn Loury on the Glenn show - the kind of show you talk about as needed, a conservative and liberal discussing race and other issues intelligently.

But I agree - I wish there were more liberals like you. Independent liberal thinkers. Who show good faith and accept good faith from their opponents. And who want to create/discuss practical solutions for all people not just moralize about who is good and who is bad. — Fire Ologist

Thanks! I know there are plenty of conservatives like you - I grew up with them. When my life hit rock bottom, rocked by tragedy (and cancelled by woke) it was conservatives that showed up for me, more than progressives, despite my being surrounded by progressives.

I go back to the at least the 1960’s (could go further first) and point out the anti-Vietnam War western baby-boom generation - rebellion glamorized in music and for the first time the movies and then the press, but mostly in protests against government oppression, and rich man’s oppression, and then male oppression of women and white oppression of colored. — Fire Ologist

Joseph Heath's "Rebel Sell" starts with this position, and then uses it to dismiss the 'radicalism' of the likes of Michael Moore and Naomi Klein. I loved Moore and Klein back in the day, still respect them, and yet agree with Heath completely. It's a morally empty stance.

possibly all woke ideas are left-leaning. — Fire Ologist

Trans concepts of 'female' identity are pretty conservative. Grotesquely so, at times, if you read the likes of Andrea Long Chu. She seems to really value being on the receiving end of the male gaze.

It portrays wokeness as treating race, sex, and power as the most important factors in all choices, when in reality most who identify with or are labeled as “woke” simply emphasize awareness of systemic inequities alongside other concerns. — praxis

I agree with you here, but you omit the fact that the influential voices within woke do not view things this way. Wokeness requires three groups - John McWhorter's 'Elect', the leaders (neoliberal technocrats, generally) who determine the policy, the 'true believers' who spread the word, and the masses, of whom you speak.

I agree that the average woke individual is well intentioned and well meaning. But they are also generally moral relativists, who can't see the moral failures of their leaders.

Kirk did have a following of outraged Christian nationalists, if that counts as organic. — jorndoe

I imagine it does. The non-organic portion of his martyrdom are the opportunistic 2025ers. Plenty of regular people reacted organically.

Correct -- my position is that what the left is doing in terms of free speech is not even 1% of the threat of the right wing currently. Serious estimate. — Mijin

Seriously? 1%? Name another issue with that sort of disparity. Can't? Right. It's not a sane stance to take. Unless, of course, you fancy yourself objectively right? Which puts you in John McWhorter's self-appointed priestly caste.

Was anyone besides the shooter rounded up because of political speech — Fire Ologist

Loads of people got fired for social media posts that were hostile to Kirk in the wake of his murder.

It amazes me how ill people think of Christians, even though it’s always been that way since Christ was hung on a cross. — Fire Ologist

Amazes me too. Ayaan Hirsi Ali talks about how Islam needs it's own reformation. My opinion of the Old Testament is radically different than the New Testament. You know I'm an atheist, but I can still respect and value Jesus. It certainly seems to me that Christianity is more closely aligned with woke morality than Islam (speaking in wildly broad terms) and yet the woke tend to despise Christianity and venerate Islam.

Yet another example of the moral incoherence of woke.

Any evidence of the injustices and suppression of free speech and free assembly that you're saying is a significant problem on the left, right now. — Mijin

Okay. From my readings in the past few days.

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/09/29/scottish-police-arrest-serial-speaker-women-arrested-for-holding-sign-offering-to-discuss-abortion/

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/10/05/freedom-shirts-reportedly-banned-in-kansas-elementary-public-school/

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/10/02/how-the-west-failed-the-test-of-the-danish-cartoons-controversy/

https://unherd.com/2025/10/the-terror-of-the-anti-israel-machine/

https://courage.media/2025/08/16/ending-the-muslim-brotherhoods-american-experiment/

Some of these are directly on the topic of free speech, others less direct. That took me ten minutes, to review articles I've bookmarked and find recent examples.

But if you are blind, you can't see, no matter how urgent the images.

That ten minute effort of mine represents more evidence than I've seen from you this entire thread.

I do recall you correcting my spelling though. In case you've been reading my posts, you are the commenter that puzzles me via Andrew Doyle's question...

Am I talking to a twelve year old or a sociology professor? And yet other woke doctrinaires think you are doing 'good work'? Sigh.

Trump is not 'political' at all. He is an immoral opportunistic bully, aligned with colleagues who value his opportunism and weird charisma to empower their own opportunistic agenda....

— Jeremy Murray

That seems a little naiive to me. Trump is clearly highly political and cares deeply about political issues. He is, though, a moron with only glimpses of moral scruples. But I don't quite understand this characterisation - just as I don't when words like 'dictator' are thrown around. It's just not serious enough. — AmadeusD

I mean, he was a Democrat most of his life? He changes his mind weekly? What political issues does he care deeply about? Dictator, sure, pass, that gets abused.

I imagine the man does care about his base. Is that political?

I think it's fair to say that he is anti-war. Otherwise, I see little deeply held belief.

None of this is hard to see
— Jeremy Murray

It does seem to be, though. — AmadeusD

You don't see people increasingly connecting the 2025 project to Trump's actions? I only made this connection myself after reading commentary making the connection. The Kimmel thing is the obvious example. Perhaps the rest of it 'remains to be seen'?

To me, he has been telling people what he was going to do for years, with the insurrection the most obvious. People are still surprised when it happens, but that's not because the statements aren't there to see. It's that the actions are so outrageous.

It’s just a few small groups of child abusers. Just like in the British white community. — Punshhh

This is false. Per capita, certain Muslim populations are far more likely to abuse children in Britain.

You are suggesting that there is no element of Islam, as currently practiced, that is more misogynistic than Christianity, as currently practiced.

Does that even sound plausible, if you ignore ideology?

I can provide data. Ask me, if you want some. That would indicate that you care to engage. Otherwise, not worth my time.

Racial sensitivity is not a result of woke ideologies, it’s an inevitable result of having groups of immigrants living in an area. — Punshhh

Yes. And we should ignore this? Pretend that if we didn't have so many dumbass poor white people around, it would all work out?

This is right wing propaganda, — Punshhh

I am not right wing. Prove your assertion with some sort of data / evidence, or I will continue to trust my years of research and front line experience. I fear you spend two minutes or less on your comments to me.

Any comments on the dude named Jihad who just attacked and murdered Jews in Manchester?

I assume it will amount to something like 'watch out, those dumbass poor white people are going to weaponize this'.

Note. I am not populist / conservative / neoliberal / Christian / etc, so you can't dismiss my points with broad generalizations about groups. As if that's how the social sciences work in the first place.

I appreciate that you reply to me man. I used to be progressive. I hope for substantive engagement though, not talking points.

Does a boy really know what sexuality is? What straight is? What race or being "white" is? They do not. — Outlander

Hello Outlander. I appreciate you commenting on my post! But I think these questions are nutso.

And, irrelevant. Who cares if they know definitions of these terms that you approve of? Kids do feel and think and know things. If the outcome of a belief system damages children, it is a problem.

Miserable people have the most kids, they're the lions share of humans alive on this rock. That means, they are raised by terrible people and have no guidance, they see their parents flaws, who in turn irrationally act out (they are also mentally ill, yes, most people alive are mentally ill by all legitimate, medical standard) are fully aware, and so take it out on the world around them. So they will bully smaller "happier" children. Now, if your kid was larger, they wouldn't dare. See what's going on here? The "strong" (mentally weak, or raised by the mentally weak) pick on the "weak" (physically smaller) because it's the only thing they can do to feel adequate being raised by mentally-weak subhumans who don't know how to raise children and should have no business having any. — Outlander

Lot of judgement here.

But setting that aside, "most people alive are mentally ill by all legitimate, medical standard" is, again, nutso.

Mental illness is not really subject to 'legitimate mental standard'. Psychology is, what, 150 years old? Mental illness is a different concept from physical illness.

Calling people who act poorly 'mentally ill' is insulting to those of us with mental illnesses. It is insulting to victims of those acting poorly. Etc.

You can't force people not to suck. None of what you have written here is 'making sense yet'. What are you suggesting?

There must have been people 500 years ago who thought they were ugly, or weak, or stupid. They might have had that ingrained by an abusive parent. Don't you think? — Patterner

Hey Patterner,

I don't, really. Not in the way you are expressing it. Certainly, there would have been people who knew they were less attractive than others, but that's just how it was, right?

They weren't going to feel worse about it, because they were peasants struggling to survive, Christians or members of other faiths who felt their life was predetermined, etc. None of these things relate to self-esteem because they were simply facts.

The premise of self esteem requires a self to esteem.

Do you think the concept of the 'self' that exists today is similar enough to whatever concept of the 'self' that existed 500 years ago to make that conclusion?

I really recommend Twenge's book "The Narcissism Epidemic", a classic proven prescient. Do you feel narcissism to be a problem today? If so, and I assume you and all other sane people do, what is the relationship of the concept of self-esteem to narcissism?

There's no comparison between the two responses. Celebrating a political assassination of a non-politician and wanting to further your non-violent political agenda aren't quite comparable. To be clear though, Project 2025 seems insane. Perhaps I'm just not across it, but I have not seen anything which would lead me to thin there was opportunism. The murder itself was expected. The right was correct to prepare for something like this - particularly after Mangione and the two attempts on Trump. I simply cannot draw the parallel you are i guess. — AmadeusD

I may have been unclear, but I am not trying to draw an equivalency. Not sure you read what I wrote,

I simply think that the right were waiting around for a Charlie Kirk moment, as they basically laid out in the 2025 project. Dude who cancelled Jimmy Kimmel wrote part of that document. Like how Trump told us all he would incite an insurrection months before the insurrection. None of this is hard to see.

MAGA wanted their own George Floyd. When they got one, they acted.

The 'right' are not represented by the Trump admin, nor the 2025 project. Assuming you and I are using the term the same way - to refer to the general population on the right.

Trump is not 'political' at all. He is an immoral opportunistic bully, aligned with colleagues who value his opportunism and weird charisma to empower their own opportunistic agenda. Sort of like how shitty leaders like Trudeau are the useful idiots of radical left ideologues who in no way actually represent the vast majority of people on the left.

You think the martyrdom of Kirk is somehow organic?

Hiya Punshhh.

The grooming gang scandal is a social problem, due to the cultural differences between the British population and the Asian, mainly Pakistani and Bangladeshi people who came in to the U.K — Punshhh

That's an awfully charitable way to put it. Another way is to say that certain cultural groups viewed poor western girls as beneath contempt, and due to clan / familial hierarchies, entire closely related groups engaged in predatory grooming and rape over decades, throughout England. Lots of evidence on these points, including direct quotations from victims, abusers and authorities. Happy to provide sources if you want.

But this wasn’t due to politeness, or woke rationale, but fear of being labelled racist, or prosecuted for racial discrimination. — Punshhh

'Wokeness' denies that intent matters, so I don't see how intent factors in here - the outcome of woke thought is this fear of being 'labelled racist'. Sure, this predates wide usage of the term, but it's the same project we called political correctness in the 90s, the same ideas going back to Marcuse and others in the 60s.

I see nothing kind towards immigrants as a whole in allowing a small subset to taint the whole project. Societies need immigration. But the models that exist do not reflect our global realities.

I just read "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She was fighting against honour killings and female genital mutilation in the Netherlands decades ago, and faced the same issues - a public that refuses to confront dark elements of immigration. Nothing has changed today, as we pass the 20 year anniversary of the Danish cartoon controversy.

In the U.K. there isn’t an open door policy, again this is a populist lie. — Punshhh

I don't see the term 'populist' as automatically a negative, and I'm happy to use a different term if 'open-door' is too loaded to serve.

The entire WEIRD world empowered a boom in low-skilled workers during COVID. I would certainly argue that 'open-door' describes Canada, and we only have one neighbouring country to worry ourselves with.

In the U.K. what is referred to as Woke has been present since the early 1980’s and hasn’t increased particularly. — Punshhh

We radically disagree on this. Social media + smart phones essentially enabled woke institutional capture across WEIRD governmental agencies - public ed, universities, immigration, medicine, law, etc, etc. It's why your UK wokists talk about BIPOC, or chant 'hands up don't shoot' at cops. (And yes, of course, other institutions and sectors have seen the same tech trend empowering conservative institutional capture).

I agree with you that the right is weaponizing this. I find it harder to make my case under Trump v2 since he has gone all 2025 on the world.

But surely we can agree that Trump is a dreadful, destructive figure, that some conservatives are crass opportunists at best on woke issues, and that woke / leftist / progressive / whatever term you like ideology also has major flaws?

Thatcher took up the neo-liberal ideology from the US in the 1980’s and we have been drifting in that direction ever since. — Punshhh

Woke is inherently neo-liberal, and neo-liberals are not all conservatives - Blair and Clinton were the ones I saw a young guy coming up.

I read "When McKinsey Comes to Town" last year. I think we'd agree they are 'neo-liberal'? I kept reading their documents (the journalistic work was impressive, they had a lot of evidence) thinking, why does this language sound so familiar?

It's the legalese of woke. Check out McKinsey's own publications - they are, themselves, woke.

This McKinsification of world leader groupthink is to me a larger concern than the excesses of woke or the ____ right, whatever term you like.

To loosely paraphrase Marxist thinker Adolph Reed, who cares if the top leaders in the company are a diverse group if neoliberalism continues to propel income inequality?

These are the same people driving the conversation around immigration.

I'm sure you see it differently!

Great conversation when he was telling Chris how he felt about his Korean son. — Patterner

Honestly, NE was the first time I saw mature conversations on some of these controversial subjects on television, as a teen in the 80s. The second ever gay marriage on tv, if I recall correctly?

I don't think characters like Maurice really exist anymore. Any modern equivalents you can think of?

Maybe it took the rationalistic, westernized notion of the individual to figure out a problem that had been around all along? I don't know. I never considered it. — Patterner

I grabbed Twenge's book. She traces the self-esteem movement back to the 60s, Maslow and his hierarchy, among other trends. Self-esteem is one rung below Self-actualization, and per Twenge, 'much easier to achieve' and therefore the one concept came to eclipse the other.

I can't really imagine how people would have thought to even consider self-esteem prior to the 20th century. It feels like an outcome of the Enlightenment and post-WW2 prosperity. I doubt it had much global resonance prior to the 21st century, although AI tells me it is a universal concept?

My grandmother began as a public school teacher and was forced to retire when was 65. Then she turned to private schools. One small private school interfered with her classroom discipline, and she quit. She demanded authority in her classroom, and there were enough small private schools for her to find a school that respected her as a teacher. — Athena

Hi Athena. Great story about grandma. Education is in my family too - my maternal grandmother opened a nursery school in basement. One of the first women in her community to 'work'.

She raised my mom, who floated around teaching the younger grade levels until finding a home in kindergarten. When mom passed, she had families showing up at the funeral - from kindergarten! She had became something of a figure at the school, and loads of kids had cousins or siblings that ended up with her. I fear that identity - community teacher - is in decline as neoliberals seem to prefer teachers be interchangeable.

Who has the authority to dictate what happens in the workspace of educated professionals or business owners?

Yes, we have social injustices, but is distroy individual liberty and power the best way to handle this fact of life? — Athena

I fault neoliberalism - but more plainly, the fear of lawsuits seems the driving force of 'determining authority'. Teachers here only have the authority they are able to create for themselves - it is impossible in Ontario to count on admin to support them, in all but the most extreme cases.

Wouldn't it make sense to build schools around the best teachers - like your grandmother and my mom?

I used to be diametrically opposed to charter schools, private schools, etc. Given I fear that public education in Canada has been ideologically captured, I now wish we had more choice for students and teachers both.

Brave New World — Athena

Neil Postman wrote back in the 80s that our dystopia would be Brave New World not 1984. I agree with both you and him!

From Philadelphia - the cradle of liberty. — Fire Ologist

Nice! I was a camp counsellor one summer in Schwenksville, PA. Spent a few days in Philly afterwards. Great city. Possible World Series opponents, you and I.

All nuanced and truly independent thought unfortunately often (not always) gets trampled by these two mobs, but I think it is becoming clear that the left finds more strength in the mob than they do in their own ideas. — Fire Ologist

I think the 'mob' you are referring to here are essentially moral relativists, a trend beginning in the 60s and continuing today. Parents that teach their kids that there are no universal moral values, but also don't take them to church or provide them with alternatives beyond general cultural norms for being 'good'.

I think the desire for shared values is universally human, and it seems to me that this group felt this too, and defaulted to standards forged in an era of righteous moral outrage. It was easy to see systems actually oppressing people, locally and globally, in the 60s, perhaps for the first time in human history.

Systems oppress, standpoint epistemology helps overcome historical bias, shared social justice endeavours are empowering ... these are sort of default beliefs today.

So for someone outside of these 'marginalized' groups, the correct stance becomes sort of a collective willingness to outsource moral claims to outsider voices, increasingly represented by privileged technocrats, which are then shared back to, and validated by, a group consensus or vibe.

Charitably, this is a moral belief system, and it could theoretically be valid, but it seems that it is failing a stress test in the social media age. This relativistic, vibe-oriented moral consensus is not sturdy enough to survive algorithmic abuse.

Of course, this mainstream 'mob' doesn't come to these conclusions alone - the true believers serve as the priestly caste, in many ways. It is rare to find a DEI expert who doesn't drape themselves in some sort of spirituality these days - indigenous 'ways of knowing', for example.

And both groups would be irrelevant if our global elites, across the political spectrum, weren't largely neoliberal technocrats, happy to outsource morality to HR departments, thus hedging their bets in case they get sued for discrimination, an idea I learned from Richard Hanania.

Just invoking his name is enough for members of this mob to simply dismiss me outright. The most frightening think about this kind of groupthink is the certitude.

The only person I can't trust is one certain of his views on subjective matters.

I used to teach a Christopher Hedges essay on 'turning a blind eye'. It feels as though the woke mob has turned a blind eye. It's not that they choose not to see - it is that they cannot. They no longer have the capacity.

I got much of my thinking here from dissonance theory, as outlined in "Mistakes Were Made, (but Not by Me)", Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson's classic.

It seems to me obvious that woke ideology may, in some clear ways, across a variety of issues, be causing harm to the groups it is meant to empower. That's some tremendous cognitive dissonance.

I just can't understand not recognizing the weight of Pascal's wager here.

This is the left’s biggest problem - it’s become mob rule at its worst. — Fire Ologist

Even if people find my thinking here conspiratorial nonsense, pragmatically it feels urgent for the left to address the worst excesses of woke mob rule. The world would be better off with a healthy, moral, intellectually and politically viable left.

FWIW, I think MAGA is an insane movement too. But like you Fire, I agree that some people are left with no alternative but to plug their noses and vote for a party or leader they do not respect. I asked my tenant a hypothetical the other day - who would you choose between Trudeau and Trump?

I couldn't vote for either, morally. I identify as a conscientious objector and have voted only once since the pandemic. And as a Canadian, I have more options to chose from. I imagine the majority of posters here think me a conservative. I just find it too easy for people to dismiss me via perceived political ideology.

You can't do that if I renounce the experiment entirely.

Fire, have you seen the 'perfect rhetorical fortress' concept?

And do you read Jonathan Turley?

Sorry for the length of the post!

Hi Patterner, it's fun to talk about Northern Exposure! Sadly overlooked. I read somewhere that the show was hard to get for years due to licensing issues with all the music they used to play at the Brick. That was the first time I ever heard a lot of different music on TV. Daniel Lanois springs to mind.

Why is it a negative that a Native American is written to be such a person? — Patterner

Gosh, no, it's not negative. It did speak to the mood of the era though, and general themes of anti-establishment thinking that seemed to permeate. I would have liked it had Leonard been slightly more complex - nearly every character on that show aside from him had negative and positive qualities.

Leonard remains my favourite non-regular, and one of my favourites from the show. Strangely, Maurice emerged as another upon a recent repeat viewing. They put that guys flaws under the microscope, but he was no caricature. His growth during the episode featuring Ron and Eric's wedding was genuinely moving.

it seems to me it's possible that it was always there, but nobody thought to name it? — Patterner

I don't have my copy of Twenge's book handy, and don't have the facility with philosophy that many round here do to pull from ... but it's a pretty modern concept. Where do we see examples of 'self-esteem' in say the works of Shakespeare, for example? The self-loathing of Hamlet is not the inverse of self-esteem.

The rationalistic, westernized notion of the individual seems necessary for discussions of self-esteem?

Even the one serious left leaning newspaper that’s left, The Guardian, has become more centrist now. — Punshhh

Hi Punshhh, thanks for the reply.

The Guardian was one of the papers I used to read that lead me to seek an escape from my progressive bubble. I used to find them serious.

I assume you have been a reader for while? I noticed a downturn towards woke dogma almost a decade back.

Not to dismiss concerns about media ownership / bias on the right. I read broadly as a counterweight to bias (hopefully).

The small boats issue, despite being an intractable problem only contributes 4% to the immigration figures. It is only being shouted about because the right wing press in desperation (following the demise of the Tory party), is throwing everything behind Farage and overt racism is becoming normalised now in that endeavour. — Punshhh

4% is a lot of immigrants. Migrant hotels in smaller communities are raising difficult questions. Many of the protestors at those things, like the big London rally, seem to be 'ordinary moms' and such. Certainly, there are creepy elements, like the organizer of said London rally.

But 'a nation of strangers' seems a fair concern?

I support thoughtful immigration. I don't see that though, certainly not here in Canada. I do see people like our dearly departed leader Justin Trudeau calling opponents of immigration racist. That's not helping people have deep, meaningful conversations.

The grooming gang / rape gang scandal, these are a minority of migrants, but they also have to be considered a national scandal, no? A clear example of the worst sort of immigration policy - one that people refuse to discuss, for fear of giving offense?

I taught ESL in high school for years here in Toronto. I loved those kids. It was a different era of immigration, and we were lauded for our points-based system. I think naive, open-door approaches to immigration do a disservice to kids like the ones I taught.

With globalization skyrocketing, an ever-growing ease of maintaining an international identity of a local one, old approaches to immigration simply do not work the same as they used to.

Do you see no major concerns with UK - or EU, for that matter - immigration policy?

Not quite. I am quite personally really perturbed and unsettled by the celebrations and subsequent justifications of the same. This murder and its response seems like a Rubicon moment to me. I didn't see this coming. Kirk is just so ... middling...both the event and the response are out of all proportion (which doesn't surprise) and are explicitly hateful and violent. This, to me, was not predictable. — AmadeusD

Kirk's murder might not have been the best example for me to raise - the response does have a Rubicon feel to it. I didn't predict anything of this scale, that's for sure.

It sure feels like Republican 2025ers were waiting for the right sort of woke excess to respond to with hyperbolic opportunism.

I find both extremes of the spectrum gross. I'm not used to feeling them gross in the same fashion.

I am considering starting a thread just for PTSD survivors. It is a serious problem, especially when one does not know that it is a personal problem — Athena

I hope you do!

I find it remarkable that I did not realize I had PTSD for close to a decade. I could recognize mental illness in others but not myself. As a man, of a certain age, I think it was just not considered a possibility. This was a massive insight for me, not just personally, but because it made me realize how deeply embedded certain values and beliefs are in my progressive world.

The only 'pragmatic' solution I see is to find interest groups across political and demographic divides that unite on primary shared moral principles. I think of free speech heroes FIRE in the US, who attract conservatives and liberals.
We had that. It was called public education and being American. That education was built on the Athenian model of education for well-rounded, individual growth. An evil religion based on a mythology of false beliefs and distorted history is not a good thing. — Athena

I certainly taught with that principle in mind. That, unfortunately, is what got me cancelled, which lead to my downfall.

Historically, there are plenty of schools whose goals were more social control than human empowerment, but I still value the project. I fear education has becoming overwhelmingly woke, which to me is divisive, a state I find most problematic given that these are children, who are required by law to subject themselves to what, at times, is nothing more than indoctrination.

BTW, I look forward to your thread on the history of education as well as the one on PTSD.

I am late to this thread, but glad I read it, lots of interesting comments. If not too late, some of my thoughts.

Agreed with the OP - the term, as currently deployed, does not have utility.

Incitement to violence, as in Rwanda, via hate, clearly a different matter.

I know that so many oppose 'wokism'. However, this may be about allowing bullying and legitimising forms of oppression in the name of 'freedom to express hate', as a human right. — Jack Cummins

You can contend with the bullying without using the term 'hate' which is of course subjective. One of the things I, ahem, hate about wokeness is that it can encourage this framing. As a teacher, I seldom encountered anything 'hateful' in hallways or classrooms, but I always wondered how often the concept of hate replaces the concept of bullying. And what of bullying towards those with no 'hated' identity category?

I find it difficult to consider a 'hierarchy' of traumas for children. A straight white boy experiencing bullying will experience plenty of negative feelings. I fear the concept of hate obscures this in some cases.

I am a free speech absolutist. To my knowledge, there are no hate speech laws in the US, but here in Canada, we have them. We nearly had one that would have criminalized future speech. I kid you not.

And in the UK, people are being reported for non-crime hate incidents on a daily basis. Think of that Father Ted guy getting arrested at the airport over three tweets.

I find myself despairing somewhat to see US conservatives now invoking hate speech the way we Canadians do, despite the laws being so very different. So many US leaders, across the spectrum, seem to misunderstand free speech principles - the oft abused 'shouting fire in a theatre' meme, for example.

Hate is an inherently high resolution word. Intensity corresponds with specificity. Go ahead and check within - the things you hate most are very specific. So are the people.

By contrast, the hate speech version requires a lower resolution target - and so a lower intensity dislike. The territory of hate speech is much more like out-group etiquette than hatred. — Roke

Well said. I am enjoying your comments throughout.

Can the issue of hate speech be addressed without embarking on perceived issues of political victimization? — javra

Great question. Probably not? I certainly don't see anyone out policing hate speech against white people - the premise is viewed as laughable. There are certainly plenty of statements made by, say, DEI advocates about whites that would be considered hate if it were directed toward a group with less power.

It comes down to the power of the relative power of the group, a phenomenon we all witnessed when jews went from oppressed to oppressor overnight on Oct. 7th. (an oversimplification, for sure)

One of the dangers of 'hate speech' is that we don't know the demographics of the groups doing the hate speaking, but we know the culprit is likely 'white supremacy'. How hate speech by Muslims towards Jews represents 'white supremacy' is where things get dicey.

If 'power' is central to the definition of 'hate speech', that's just another subjective term that can be misused. Those who speak in the language of power certainly have plenty of 'power' - educational privilege, class privilege, etc.... Trudeau, calling voters opposed to his open-door immigration policies 'racist' seemed to be punching down, not up.

It is just too easy to abuse the language for tribal purposes.

I do wonder how much of the explosion in accusations of hate speech is due to the availability heuristic?

This is the best thing I've read on free speech in the wake of the Kirk murder. Greg Lukianoff is a progressive free speech champion. Glad to see conservative "The Free Press" giving him the platform.

https://www.thefp.com/p/bury-the-words-are-violence-cliche

"We need maximal tolerance for speech; zero tolerance for force".

I agree with Lukianoff.

There is so precious little good faith left between the sides. And it is not just extremists on both sides. It’s everyone. The line between Republican and Democrat is stark (woke securely on the progressive side, and conservatives squarely republican) like a border wall. — Fire Ologist

Hello Fire!

Are you an American? I always find it strange how the entire WEIRD world seems to have imported the binary of Republican / Democrat. Or the tenants of wokeness, like BIPOC - neither frame should resonate here in Canada the same as they do in the US, yet we import them intact.

The conversation about free speech is “yeah, but you cheered when Kirk was shot!” Versus “yeah, but you cheered when the FCC shut down Kimmel!” — Fire Ologist

I see a significant minority of thoughtful conservatives rejecting this, which I think speaks to the value of an issue of principle like freedom of speech. I see fewer lefties standing on principle here, but some.

Frankly, the only value I see remaining in the political spectrum are these principled stances.

I often think of this doc on racism in the UK I watched last year. One of the talking heads said, to paraphrase, "I'm more on the side of X than King" when it comes to activism. Which conflates the two, obviously, ignores the fact that King succeeded where X did not, and fails to recognize that it was the Christian, non-violent values that King embodied that empowered his successes.

To this talking head, the only thing that seemed to matter was the cause, and any methods were permissible to achieve it.

But I don't think this style of thinking is as pervasive as you do - there are a lot of silenced voices in the middle. The opportunity cost of expressing these views, or remaining neutral, is just too high for some people.

You would hope the philosophic types around here would be able to parse through the emotional knee-jerk mess a little better, identify facts, and stay logical and reasonable with the analysis and conclusions. — Fire Ologist

Yes. I've already seen how people that can seem like Doyle's 12 year old on this topic can make outstanding, thoughtful comments elsewhere. BTW, you are borderline heroic to me in your efforts in this thread.

Is the naked emperor on both sides? Is wokism the naked emperor, along with conservatives’ often excessive and cold-hearted ways? — Fire Ologist

I view the woke project as a result of a neoliberal, morally relativistic technocracy. I think those excessive, cold-hearted conservatives are neoliberal moral relativists too ... just not technocrats.

So it is essentially the same emperor to me, one whose power rests on obscene wealth, across the spectrum.