Jake it's because i'm aware that reduction can go to far that i said what i said about essence in the beginning of my post. Maybe there is no real essence or bottom line to the matter... I gave it a try, and we'll see where it goes.

Yes that is definately part of it. But I think that can also be viewed in an even larger context as I tried to describe in my last post.

Allright, I'll give a little bit more context to my reasoning... Geopolitically from the second world war onwards the North Western Atlantic Alliance, which is basicly the US and it's European 'vasal' states, have dominated the world. The political, military, and economic power translated into a lot of wealth for these nations which enabled them to keep their system of capitalist liberal democracy running relatively smoothly.

Things are changing however, with China and the Brics countries rapidly overtaking the western countries in economic power. It's only a matter of time I think before this will also translate into more military and political power for them, with a definate shift in the geopolical balance as a result.

The story establishment parties in Western countries have been telling, includes the idea of geopolitical dominance, free markets... and the wealth that comes with that. With the balance of power in the world shifting, liberal capitalist democracies are coming under stress as excess wealth is diminishing. And so more and more people are left behind, and the story is becoming harder and harder to sell.

This is when you get populism, when no establisment party seem to have a believable project that includes a good part of the population.

Therefor we need a new project that takes into account a changed world, not only geopolitically, but also technologically etc... or something will have to give I think.

Populism and extrimist parties vs establishment parties generally.

As examples, Trump vs Hillary and the rise of populist parties all over Europe.

I don't think the split is only or even mostly simply due to a division in ideas, it think it's more a question of economical and social position, and in-groups vs.out-groups. Ideologies are mixed in there, sure, but I think your are missing a vital element if you just gloss over social and economic realities.

Jake, that is I think going to far in reducing everything to its essence ;-).

.

Maybe it's to cynical, in that I don't think people allways vote with only their own interest or social status in mind. It think a lot of people want to believe in something larger generally... of course if everything in a culture is pointing to self-interest only, that is what they will come to believe too.

Why do you think that's exactly what he saying?

At the end of the first paragraph he saying for instance:

"and to convince yourself (after examining them) that they are more then absurd"

And then he doesn't seem to indicate anything other than reason to solve the problem. In the third paragraph he goes on to say:

"It is wrong to believe that by letting reason intervene and reduce (or if lucky completely eliminate) these affects( negative emotions or passions as the antics called them), we'll automatically reduce the good emotions/passions too - those that reason does not condemn"

This seems to imply that reason itself can reduce or eliminate the emotions...

I mean, maybe he has a more nuanced view on it than can be deduced from these quotes, but so far he sounds like the typical philosopher overvaluing reason.

Russell was a good logician, but probably not the best psychologist...

Reason can definately help to loosen the grip of some negative emotion/values held... but something more is needed usually to close the deal.

My mother is afraid to fly in plains, yet has no problem driving a car... no amount of perfectly valid reasons, for instance that cars are more deadly and dangerous than plains, will make her fear for plains go away. I've tried.

What does seem to work better, is something that interacts more directly with experience and emotions, like desensitization for irrational fears.

What apokrisis said... better than I could have said it.

I'd like to add though that I think emotional connection is probably very important in any therapeutic proces. Usually these kind of things are not something you can only reason yourself out of.

The emotional connection between mother and baby for instance has been shown to be an important factor in how mentally stable a person is later in life. A mother apparently can attune to a babies emotions by making faces, holding the baby... and thereby sort of prerationally learn a baby to regulate his or her emotions.

A lot of therapist will probably also begrudgingly admit that the most important factor in therapy is just letting the patient talk and relating, giving emotional feedback etc...

So what I'm suggesting is that rational understanding, a healthy diet and sport will all no doubt help, but that will possibly not be enough. Develloping intimate friendships and relations where you feel you let your social guard down and open up emotionally, would seem to be a key ingredient.

This would need to be face to face interactions too, since emotions are not or not easily communicated over text, which is interesting and also a bit sad in times where more and more is happing at a distance over the net.

People have allways been influenced by some group or another. Nefarious is kind of a loaded term... it used to be the catholic church and whomever political power was in bed with them, now it's economic interests that are pulling the strings.

The real danger is probably in the possibilty of large concentrations of power and the unprecedented ability to influence people because of the new technology.

It's hard to tell which way it's going. Maybe it'll get worse because of that technology. Or maybe we'll wise up and learn to how to handle this new technology by imposing some limitations on it. Don't forget that certainly in terms of ethical devellopment, this technolgy is all still very recent... changes have indeed been fast.

As a society you only tend to see clear about the negative effects of something new, years later, and then years to devellop good ways of dealing with that. So maybe that is also a concern, that change is happening to fast for the proces of moral devellopment to keep up.

I suppose the difference lay in the sense between "disidentification" and "not identifying with a thought" in the quote, which could also mean or come down to "detachment". — Posty McPostface

Detachment, which would mean that there is a distance or lack of attachment (i.e. 'fleeting') also would not seem to imply to me that there is no thought at all. This to me means that thoughts just come and go without you as a person fixating on any particular one of them.

Maybe there is some equivocation going on here between 'identification' as the basic rule of logic, and 'identification' as something a person does as a part of the formation of an identity.

I would agree that without the law of identity, thinking is not really possible. But identification with yourself as a person doesn't seem necessary to me for thought to occur.

So to finally answer your question :-), I guess purely logically or mathematically, the opposite of the opposite is sameness (or identity). — ChatteringMonkey
Yes; but, if all is one, then there's no identity apart from the whole. Sounds about right? — Posty McPostface

Parmenides would agree.

So to finally answer your question :-), I guess purely logically or mathematically, the opposite of the opposite is sameness (or identity).

X = - (-X)

Edit : Although this is merely negation, not sure if this is the same, or if there is an equivalent for opposites in logic and math. What does one mean with opposites exactly anyway?

I mean not a whole lot of things are true opposites in the world, it's usually only language that wants to take us there...

For instance, truth and falsity, reason and emotion... are not true opposites.

Yes i would say opposites are usually metapysical. The world is better described in sliding scales then opposites i think.

But thoughts do no come from the I, or removing identification with thought would not remove thought alltogether, I don't understand that jump you (or he) make there.

And yes keep us posted about the book.

No, it's actually very simple. One may use the word 'detaches' instead of 'disidentification' is so one chooses. He talks about detachment from the content of thought (pure mindlessness or mindfulness). What's left is pure awareness. The desired state of mind of Buddhists, Zen Masters, Tao). — Posty McPostface

This is interesting because i have almost the exact opposite view of the quote.

He says the cessation of thought is not possible, but the cessation of identification with it is. To me this indicates that the content of thought is still there, there's no such thing as pure mindlessness if you believe the quote. What i take to be possible is changing your valuation of the thought, you don't think it's that important or you don't identify with it.

The way it works in my experience is that by taking it serious, or by identifying with it you actually strenghten it, and it comes back more often. And conversely, by not doing that, it merely passes from that thought to the next, and like any regular thought you don't focus on, it stays fleeting.

This also seems to be in line with a lot of meditation practices where to goal is not to force yourself not to think, but to merely observe thoughts and refrain from evaluation...

Yeah, it's a futile concept in my opinion to address internal problems of the mind such as depression and other maladies. You don't negate depression by not identifying with it, I think. — Posty

You don't cure the depression itself maybe, but i think you can stop the feelings of guilt and shame assoiciated with labels that maybe prevent you from even starting to cure the depression itself.

It's interesting because, in CBT, there's even an attempt at disidentification, at least not overtly. It's mainly to stop labeling oneself with various labels instead. — Posty

Yeah I think the idea here is that you need to let go of the negative valuations attached to labels, the social stigma etc. That's the second layer i was talking about, the guilt and shame of being depressed, on top of feeling depressed.

Yes, well, the point would be not to identify with a label and simply accept the symptoms of depression in this case. Is that possible? — Posty

Yes i think it is... a label is only a overarching designation given to a set of certain symptoms in this case. It is a further abstraction from the symptoms, by which i mean that the symptoms are a more detailed and closer description of reality anyway. Naming and labelling, it's only a convenience thing really… not allways an absolute necessity i don't think.

But isn't it more the negative connotations attached to the label that are the problem. I mean a label or name is just that, a name given to a set of things. Without (societal mostly) evaluations attached to it, it's just neutral value. Maybe it's more those negative connotation that need to be dissolved.

Interesting. So, identification is a crude simplification. Seems true. What do you mean by the chattering monkey analogy? — Posty

Well a monkey screetches and runs arround exited a lot of the time, making a lot of noise... it's something not to be taken to seriously. The idea is that the thoughts, the internal dialogue etc are like a chattering monkey.

Hi Posty,

I"m going to come at it maybe from a slightly different direction, maybe it speaks to what you are pointing at, maybe not…

So we have ideas about who we should be, based on social norms, temperament, position in a social context etc...Then we can compare those ideas with how we percieve ourselves to actually behave, and evaluate ouselves based on that.

In case of depression, we might have the idea that we should be happy (based on social norms that we have internalised etc), but we are feeling depressed so we think we aren't really living up to that standard, which creates another layer of mental anguish.

So one feels bad because of depression, and on top of that you feel extra bad because being/feeling depressed is not what you should be/feel.

So what I take your 'identification with depression' to be in this context is the adjustment of the ideal self to be more in line with the actual self. There is adjustment of goals, expectations etc so to avoid feeling extra bad about not meeting the standards of an unadjusted ideal self. This might be a good strategy in the beginning, and indeed even necessary to not make things worse... it may even be an overall good thing because social standards are at times absurd (nobody is happy all the time). But if I understand what you are saying, it may also be the cause of staying more depressed because that's what you come to expect (identify with).

I'm not sure what the solution is here, because it would seem to disidentify you would need to build up an ideal self again that doesn't take depression into account, but then that runs the risk of backfiring if you happen to feel depressed again…

Maybe the solution is to not evaluate yourself on the happiness axis alltogheter. It doesn't seem like a goal that we have all that much controle over anyway… and more of a byproduct of other things most of the time. The whole 'wisdom is changing what you can't accept, accepting what you can't change and knowing the difference'-thing. I do believe that some things just go away if you focus on other things…. and not by trying to not focus on a thing, attention doesn't seem to work that way.

Another thing that might help is the more general realisation that thoughts and identification are allways only mere abstractions. And abstractions are necessarily crude simplifications of what's really going on, and never the whole story... sort of a deflationary approach to though in general, so you don't take it so seriously anymore, either way. That's why they sometimes call it the chattering monkey in eastern philosophy, to reduce the importance it is typically given.

I think you may be right about CBT and antidepressants, that it's more of a 'jumpstart' to get you going then an actual cure.

About the identification thing, I need to think some more. And I need some sleep, it's way past midnight here.

No it doesn't take us beyond the senses. Scientific instruments are extentions of the senses. And math, like logic, doesn't directly inform us about the world. It serves to figure out the implication of certain theories.

And science is also about utility. It's about predictability, not truth. Any decent scientist will say that he is only trying to come up with models that can predict things, not models of how things really are. Of course some may derive metaphysics from that, but that is not science. Science needs to be falsifiable, i.e. being measurable, i.e being possibile to be sensed.

CBT and the related mindfullness meditation approach seem to be putting up good results against depression.

To me these approaches seem to indicate that you disentangle from these identifications and thoughts by habituating yourself into new ways of thinking that gradually replace the old. Thoughts are seen as habits, so sustained repetition seems to be key.

Anyway, I'm not qualified to give advice on depression, I'm just giving you my general idea about these methods.

Yeah the thing in itself… nevermind that there is no way of going beyond our senses, of going beyond appearences. Why do we need a concept for something we don't have access to and so cannot sensibily speak of?

He's not ready to face the truth, implies that there are consequences for him not facing it. Being in denial about the environment also has negative consequences… it ties back to ultility.

But emergent properties, like us experiencing a solid table, are every bit as real as the underlying dynamics. What's the justification for saying that truth is only descriptions of things at their smallest level?

And even more important, it's these emergent properties that matters to us ultimately. Our everyday notion of solidness is that food doesn't fall through the table. We do not live at the subatomic level.

These are not just illusions like a mirage in the desert is, because they don't get us into trouble. That's the whole point of differentiating between illusions and what is real.

The fact that the sun rises and sets was enough for us for several millenia. It is true from our everyday perspective, and for the purposes we have. It's only when we go to space that another description really matters.

The problem is you're trying to get beyond perspective, and the utility truth has for us. Truth for truth sake...

For me it ties into my issues with procrastination. It's the kind of procrastination borne out of a desire for perfection. If I don't know exactly what is worth doing the most (question of prioritizing values), or if I don't know the best method for achieving what I want to be doing once I finally decided... I naturally start pondering those questions first.

Of course trying to think these things through in the abstract doesn't allways (mostly!) yield good results. But it's difficult to get out of that mindset, one question brings the next etc... and since I allready invested a large amout of time into thinking about it, I'd better come up with something good (sunk-cost fallacy)!

What helps for me is deciding to just start doing things, or allocating a maximum fixed amount of time thinking about higher abstractions. Some eastern practices or meditation can probably also be usefull to quiet the chattering monkey.

Your basic assumption is wrong, resources are not finite. We are not restricted to earth. It's perfectly possible even with current technology to start collecting resources from the rest of our solar system... only including earths resources is an arbitrary limitation.

You are inventing moral rules, based on incorrect assumptions, that go against human nature, and would never work anyway because of that. Please stop the naysaying, and start thinking of ways to actually move forward.

Nietzsche believed in the will to power as underlying all human motivation, and so also the will to truth. He described philosophy somewhere as being the most spiritual form of will to power.

There are ample examples in history of truth capital T being used to serve the ruling class, and wars being fought with ideas. So it's not that hard to see where he's coming from here.

He also believed in different human types, biologically determined more or less. If one is of the philosophical type, will to power would tend to manifest itself in this way... so a virus maybe, or maybe just the nature of the beast?

Without the concept of ownership, there is no theft.

You are not depriving someone else of it, because he has no inherent right to it.

Without people creating, agreeing upon rights, there are none.

So then it just becomes a matter of being the first, or wielding the biggest stick.

Philosophy only speaks to the rational part of man, and since man is not only rational it will not be convincing to a lot of people.

Religion, historically, also had art, myth, ritual, power and even philosophy on its side.

And on a more general note, historically philosophy has spawned off more and more sciences as methods and technological development became more advanced, and so the subjects could be investigated scientifically. For instance natural philosophy speculating about the nature of things became more scientific (physics and chemistry) with the invention of the microscope etc...

I think that's the moment it stops being philosophy and becomes a science. So generally this is when we can test theories with evidence, measurements.

As you no doubt know, Poppers famous criterium for science was the possibility of falsification. This has been refined over the years because it wasn't allways all that satisfying. You might want to look into the demarcation problem for more info on that.

As you alluded to, it has, and is been extensively looked at in context of the Fermi Paradox, and SETI.

The reasoning is that given the vast number of galaxies, stars, and as we recently have come to know also planets, there should be a lot of extraterrestial civilizations.

There are a lot of potential reasons why we haven't detected them yet, and the evolution of human-like brains is only one of them.

The larger debate is more philosophical i'd say because it involves a lot of speculation and estimation, while the investigation into the different reasons can be scientific. For instance, investigation into whether abiogenesis is likely can be done with experiments or by looking for evidence on other planets or moons.

And the possibility of developing intelligent brains can be informed by archealogy that could yield more information about the evolution of other species on our planet, or by finding evidence on other planets with life where intelligent life has or has not developed etc...

I think the development of sufficiently intelligent brains (for civilization) is, at this moment, one of the more likely candidates for being one of the main reason why we haven't detected aliens yet. I don't know what arguments Jonathan Losos gives for concluding that the evolution of a species like us is likely, but from what I've read that doesn't seem to be the consensus now. Large brains seem to bring with them a lot of evolutionary disadvantages, certainly in the beginning. An other argument is that other species on earth generally have gone through many more generations of evolution than primates, and yet haven't develloped more intelligent brains.

The thing is I don't think locking people up for life is any less barbaric. You are essentially taking their life away just the same. The difference is that it looks superficially more moral, because it doesn't involve the actual act of killing someone. We 'just' lock them up and forget about them...

That has been my argument from the start.

I never said deterrence or costs where good arguments for the death penalty.

And as for things going wrong with execution, sure, but at the same time plenty can go wrong with life imprisonment. That would actually be one of my main agruments contra life imprisonement for certain categories of criminals. You can never exclude the possibility of psychopaths or sociopaths doing harm to other inmates, prison personel, or even escape, if you keep them arround.

Justice is institutionalised revenge. We as individuals gave the monopoly to punish to the state to prevent constant bloodfeuds and the disordering effects that has on a society.

I think those arguing that justice should never be about revenge are missing an important function justice has in society.

Deterrence and costs don't seem like really substantial arguments for or against the death penalty, in comparison to life imprisonment.

The possibility of convicting someone who is innocent is obviously a relevant argument, but only insofar that person would otherwise be acquitted during his life-time in prison. I have no idea what the chances are of that...

Anyway, my point was more against an a priori dogmatic rejection of the death penalty as barbaric or some such. If there are good reasons for rejecting it, like the possibility of innocence, i'm on board with that.

The death penalty needs to be measured against it's alternative, life imprisonment. It's hypocritical moralism to evaluate the death penalty negatively in the abstract, as if putting people away for life is a moral neutral act. They have no prospects for a life worth living either way.

I agree that punsihment just for the sake of vengeance is backward, and if rehabilitation is possible that would be preferable. But some people are beyond rehabilitation and need to be permanently removed from society to prevent further harm.

The question is what to do with those. And I think there is something to be said for getting it over with... for all parties involved.

I don't think life imprisonment is necessarily more humane.

Develloped societies now typically see life as the highest value, and obviously there are good arguments for that, because when life ends nothing else matters anymore... But, I think there is an argument to be made that quality of life is even more important.

For instance, it seems pretty reasonable to me that torturing someone and then killing them, is worse then just killing them straight away, eventhough he does get to life longer in the first case.

If life in prison would be seen as negative quality of life, then the death sentence would be the more humane sentence.

Your core values. These don't change that much, certainly not once you pass a certain age, but possibly never since they seem to be biologically determined for a good part. — ChatteringMonkey
Are you suggesting there's a ranking of value? Which ones go first? Why? How do you arrive at that ranking? — Benkei

Not a general ranking applicable to everybody, but individual rankings of values, yes. You probably also do find some things more important than others, do you? Why is that?

How one arrives at such a ranking isn't an easy to answer question... probably involves years of experience and unconscious and conscious deliberation before something like that crystalises.

But generally it goes like any evaluation I suppose, you weigh values against each other, think throught the ramifications of certain values, test them against concrete life situations and dilemma's etc...