Yes, but I don't see how it can be claimed that sticking to your principles would be either more or less likely to bring worldly success. It all depends on what profession one is thinking of, what kind of milieu one would be working in, what kinds of people one happens to be surrounded by, and so on. — John

Okay, suppose I gain political power by murdering my political enemies and decimating (physically) the opposition. I currently control directly, or through henchmen all the state's political institutions. Now some people who are currently allied with me will know about this. In their minds, regardless of how I act to them, regardless of what I shall do, I will always be a ruthless and ultimately dangerous man, who could any day do the same to them. Now what will they do? They're not stupid. They will feign alliance to me, and at any opportune moment, will seek to get rid of me, in the same violent and ruthless fashion that I have exterminated my own opposition to gain power - and moreover, they will feel right to do it, because I'm not lawfully there in the first place. What's more important, I won't be able to distinguish ally from foe anymore, because the people I will be surrounded by will be just like me - lacking principle, because those with principle are long gone - they would never agree to work with me. So sure, I have gained victory, but at what price? I'm guaranteed to lose that victory - it's just a matter of time. A crooked success is inherently unstable and thus never worth it.

But on the contrary, if I am principled, but sly as a snake, than if someone tries to outmanuver me, if someone else tries to kill me, trick me, or otherwise get me out of their way - then I can know it, and I can exploit it - because whoever is immoral exposes themselves to the greatest of dangers. But showing kindness - even to an enemy - especially to an enemy - wins them over. Forgiveness - your people knowing that you are forgiving - that is much better than them knowing you are ruthless. Really, goodness always beats evil. Morality always trumps immorality. It's simply a matter of time.

It's an extreme example, but that's what I ultimately mean. Regardless of profession - I believe that ultimately being a crook will inevitably lead to destruction (not necessarily physical destruction, but destruction nevertheless, whether financial, etc). It's just impossible to win being a crook. But it is possible, though not certain, to win (whatever that means in the chosen profession) while following principles. The two are not contradictory - ethics and pragmatism.

People do feign falling in love, and people who are lonely and hungry for love will fall for the deceit enthusiastically, almost conspiring to maintain the fantasy. — unenlightened

Sure, but most who do feign have been in love before and know what it's like. Hence they can feign it - they have first-person knowledge of it.

But assuredly one can be a passably good actor by mere imitation and without empathy. — unenlightened

Sure, but as I said, that only works up to a point. I can't believe that one who lacks the capacity for empathy can feign empathy with there being absolutely no phenomenological difference. That's just impossible in my mind, because the person simply lacks the knowledge that he or she could have had from the first person perspective. Sure, he can be a good actor up to a point - but the best actors are always those who actually make themselves feel it. But those who can't feel, can't make themselves feel it, and therefore they can never be great actors either.

Losing due to sticking to one's principles I agree is better than winning by being crooked, but I would call that 'spiritual success' not 'worldly success'; such "losing" is not counted as worldly success under the ordinary definition. Perhaps you have some other conception of worldly success in mind? — John

No but I'm saying that you will fail worldly, guaranteed, if you are crooked. If you stick to your principles and play your cards as well as it's possible to play them in that situation (by being sly as a serpent), you stand the best chance of winning in the world as well. If even in those circumstances you lose worldly, then you could have done nothing better - winning simply didn't happen to be in the cards God gave you.

Now you may count becoming Prime Minister, or President or whatever as worldly success, but that depends. It's not always a success. It also matters what you can do from that position, how loyal your people are to your cause, and so forth. What use is getting there if it turns out you can't even apply your principles? What use is getting there if you can't even do the good you intend to do? And remember that immorality will always haunt you - you can never escape it.

So, I actually don't think you have any real justification for saying "That's the ultimate irony - those who succeed spiritually also happen to be the most likely to be successful in the world - and those who sacrifice spiritual success for worldly success, will actually lose the worldly success as well." — John

How so?

OK, but my point is that one should ideally not be at all concerned, in such spiritual or creative endeavours, with the the regard of others, or success as measured by acclaim, whether now or later. — John

Yes of course. But I'm saying that the way to gain it, is precisely and paradoxically not to be concerned with it.

In politics, of course, it is an entirely different matter; you cannot possibly be a successful politician without achieving recognition.That is why I responded critically to your apparent equation of spiritual with worldly success. — John

I don't think so - most politicians are fleeting, their names are forgotten. Few are those remembered by history, because most of them make too many sacrifices to achieve power, and hence the power itself becomes useless. To me, as I said, spiritual and worldly success always go together. Even in politics - it is better to be principled and lose because of it, than to gain the whole world and lose your soul. being principled is in truth still your best bet to win. If even that doesn't get you victory, nothing else can, not even being a crook.

Now this doesn't mean that you shouldn't be sly as a serpent. You should be - you should know who will be a crook to you, who will not, and take all factors into account, including actions of betrayal and so forth that will happen. You would need to know this. You can't be a fool who thinks everyone will be as virtuous as you, because then you will most certainly lose. But it's not worth winning while sacrificing virtue. The whole art of politics is winning without sacrificing virtue.

Yes, but the salient thing is there is never any guarantee of greatness; whether one is recognized or not. — John

Sure, so? Virtue is still the safest bet, the most likely one to win. If not even virtue succeeds, then certainly nothing, not even crookedness, will succeed. For example - if I am the crook artist, who is in reality a mediocrity - that will fail - I will be forgotten, regardless of the current popularity I am enjoying. So why choose a road where the final conclusion is certain, instead of choosing the road where there is at least some possibility? That's the ultimate irony - those who succeed spiritually also happen to be the most likely to be successful in the world - and those who sacrifice spiritual success for worldly success, will actually lose the worldly success as well.

You say that sooner or later recognition will come, but I wonder to what degree luck may play a part. Let's say you are a great artist and you produce a body of brilliant work but have achieved no recognition. All your voluminous body of work is in your studio with you when it burns to the ground, killing you and destroying all your work. Would it still be better to be that artist than a brilliantly successful mediocrity? — John

Absolutely, because a priori, the probability of remembrance is always greater if you are authentically great. You simply played the best cards you could have played, and lost. You could've done nothing better.

I think that's still mighty vague on a very broad spectrum, and on that account there would not be many people counted as failures. — John

Sure, but then there's a lot of ways that would qualify as "worldly failure" so to name all of them entails being broad.

What kind of regard counts as greater, the regard of your family and friends or of the public? — John

Family and friends probably.

The regard that proceeds from love or from fear — John

Love, because fear only works when you also have power.

from admiration or envy — John

Admiration and envy don't depend on you though - they depend on the character of the other person. Me for example, I have very high admiration for great people - when I see a great person, whether they're an artist, a writer, a businessman, a songwriter, a politician - anything, I always respect them. But I notice that most folks feel jealous of greatness rather than admiring of it. Perhaps this merely represents their own regard for themselves. I regard myself in a good light, and so I merely treat great people the way I would want to be treated if I was like them.

Who, then would be the greater failure? — John

Hard to say. Did the first have small goals because that was truly all that he wanted to do with his life, or because he was afraid to seek to do more?

Or think of art; what is better; to achieve greatness but fail to be recognized or to achieve universal acclaim and yet be a mediocrity? — John

To achieve greatness and fail to be recognised - because sooner or later, you will be recognised. Whereas if you are a mediocrity, sooner or later you will be forgotten, even if at present you enjoy fame.

Who decides whether you truly possess self-knowledge and understanding or whether you are merely deceiving yourself? Who decides what are the right principles or whether you are in reality devoted to right principles, rather than to your own ego? — John

By faith.

Only when we have a solid account of what it means to "fail in the world" will we have the means to assess the justifiability of your claim that spiritual success is not possible when people "fail in the world". Although, a need for a cogent account of what 'spiritual success' consists in might also become apparent. — John

Ok, sure. "Fail in the world" means failure amongst worldly matters, such as not being able to procure food for oneself, being disregarded by one's fellow men, failing to achieve one's worldly goals, and so forth. Spiritual success implies self-knowledge and understanding, devotion to the right principles, and virtue.

Well I apologise if I misled you. I assumed you had some familiarity with the psychological terminology. But the difference is not all that huge. The Forbes article rather assumes that we know that a psychopath is more or less as described by Psychology Today, and proceeds to explain how someone who has these traits can nevertheless appear plausibly competent and talented. — unenlightened

Alright, because to me some of these traits sound contradictory. For example - inability to plan for the future + narrowing of attention don't go well with reading and understanding people.

I wish I could wean you off your black and white thinking about this. You have just seen the same condition being described positively and negatively in your own view. But they are talking about the same condition, psychopathy. — unenlightened

In my opinion, I have seen two different conditions described, and the same name stuck to both of them, which is what my problem was. Or do you mean to say that being able to read people, having excellent use of language, and lacking social inhibitions of most when starting conversations are signs of mental illness? You'd probably be hard-pressed to find many leaders who lack these skills indeed.

Now the psychopath typically lacks in empathy, but can feign it when he finds it convenient, because he does not lack insight and understanding of others. This is a simple example of a talent and a disability coinciding. — unenlightened

I don't see how this is possible. He may try to feign it, but since he lacks the first-person understanding of empathy, his feigning will only ever be very imperfect. It's like me trying to feign that I'm in love with someone without ever having experienced love myself. I can look at what other people who are in love do, and mimic it, but since I don't actually have the feelings, then it's going to be imperfect, at certain points and in certain particular situations it will become clear that I'm only pretending to those who do have those feelings or know about them.

The surgeon on the other hand CAN access feelings of empathy, he nevertheless closes them off while performing surgery. That's different. He doesn't lack in a capacity for empathy - but from my understanding, psychopaths lack precisely in this capacity. Since they've never had it, they simply have no first-person knowledge of empathy.

Remember, I referred to what a Stoic is supposed to think, believe, feel. Being a Stoic isn't easy. — Ciceronianus the White

Okay, but why shouldn't a Stoic be concerned about money for example? I agree such a concern shouldn't overpower their concern for virtuous living, but why should there be no concern at all? What's wrong with the concern so long as it doesn't get in the way of virtuous living, and so long as it doesn't become an obsession or a source of worry?

I think you need to look at that again, and see if this bears any relation to what you think Jesus was like. — unenlightened

That's such a bait and switch tactic. So first you link me to the forbes article which suggests:

Several abilities – skills, actually – make it difficult to see psychopaths for who they are. First, they are motivated to, and have a talent for, ‘reading people’ and for sizing them up quickly. They identify a person’s likes and dislikes, motives, needs, weak spots, and vulnerabilities… Second, many psychopaths come across as having excellent oral communication skills. In many cases, these skills are more apparent than real because of their readiness to jump right into a conversation without the social inhibitions that hamper most people… Third, they are masters of impression management; their insight into the psyche of others combined with a superficial – but convincing – verbal fluency allows them to change their situation skillfully as it suits the situation and their game plan.

And then you link me to the article which talks about the following as psychopathic traits:
-uncaring
-inability to plan for the future
-violence
-selfishness
-narrowing of attention
-insincere speech
-shallow emotions

Now can you see that the two of them are very different? Yes I agree that shallow emotions, insincere speech, selfishness, violence etc. are quite possibly psychopathic traits in the mental illness sense. But take the first set of skills you've suggested to me as psychopathic traits - reading people, identifying their likes/dislikes/motives/needs/fears/vulnerabilities, not having the social inhibitions of most when jumping in a conversation, and being skillful with language and words - that sounds to me like mental strength you know. A leader, take Ghandi, for example, needs to be able to do that. He needs to identify - is this person trustable? If not then he may betray me - if he betrays me, is there a way to turn his betrayal into a useful situation for my cause? How does he respond? How does one get him to do something the quickest? Does he respond to some sort of fear, or does he respond to rewards? And so forth. These are very very important matters, and good leaders, as well as evil leaders need to have such skills. If these are the skills you call psychotic (as that article certainly does), then certainly they don't represent a mental illness to me, but signs of mental strength and intelligence.

I wouldn't see psychopathy as a mental strength, it would seem easier to single mindedly go after one's own goals if there's a complete disregard for the environment then there would be if there is a genuine care for the environment. And (again) at a certain point (don't ask me where), if there's no reciprocity at all between the goals of the overall environment and the individuals' goal, I would see that as objectively dysfunctional. (Ideology usually plays a big role in the many atrocities mankind is capable of). — Gooseone

Yeah I agree with you. I referred to psychopathy only as shown and illustrated in the forbes article, not generally. Obviously I don't think psychopaths - in what we traditionally understand by psychopaths, such as serial killers, rapists, and so forth are mentally strong. I think, actually, they are quite mentally weak, precisely because they cannot feel emotion, and thus can never understand others. I would see someone who is purely selfish as mentally ill - or otherwise just plain stupid/irrational - because such selfishness ultimately undermines itself. If you destroy your environment, that's no different than committing suicide.

No, I'm making the point that what is understood by "psychopathy" there isn't that. It's actually mental strength, but it's painted as mental weakness merely because people are afraid of strength, and they're especially afraid of strength when it could be used for evil. But Socrates, Jesus, etc. all suffer from "psychopathy" as well. It's just that they, much like Ghandi, use it for good, instead of for evil, like Hitler. So we should remove this framework of understanding which treats mental strength as mental illness - that seems to me to be putting us in a position, where, as Nietzsche said, we're reducing everyone to their weakest state.

Fyodor Pavlovitch can certainly be seen as an archetypal despicable intruder and ruiner. A man who has so little regard for anything but his own whims and desires; who can turn on the charm when necessary but is really a kind of psychopath with no genuine empathy for the feeling of others. — John

I agree that Fyodor is much like a psychopath, in that he has no degree of self-control or restraint. Forget that he feels no empathy for others - but he's just the kind of idiot who cuts the very branch on which he's sitting. He's not even a proper evil man - he's just self-destructive. He doesn't understand how his well-being depends on managing those around him. He doesn't understand how upsetting other people will end up destroying him. He doesn't understand how his ruthlessness is actually destroying him. He doesn't understand anything.

And the other lunatic Smerdyakov has a bit more brain than Fyodor. He is proper evil. And there's nothing to talk about with proper evil (especially one feigning weakness) except destroy it. With Smerdyakov there's no compromising, there's no talk of well-being, there's no talk of anything. He only understands the baseball bat, and he dedicates his life to bringing others down and making problems for them. He's like ISIS - you must not play with it, but destroy it. That's beyond redemption.

My hat goes off to you kind Sir! :)

Yes, Hitler still has his followers. But that does not prove him sane. Unwavering dedication can also be stubbornness to the point of monomania. Principles can be wrong. — unenlightened

Indeed - but that's still mental strength. Hitler is mentally strong and sane. So is Ghandi. But one is morally evil, and the other one is morally good. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. Evil or good - morality or immorality have little to do with mental strength or mental illness for that matter. In our society, very frequently we seem to associate evil with mental illness, and goodness with mental strength. One of my main points in this thread is that such an association is wrong.

Their anti fragility is mental and spiritual in being true to themselves, and 'single-minded' in the sense of not suffering from a conflicting need to 'succeed' at the cost of their own integrity. — unenlightened

Yes, but this single-mindedness certainly transforms and shows itself in the world, in worldly terms. I am arguing for what I have told you I'm arguing - namely spiritual success inevitably brings about worldly success - the two are linked. Absolute and unwavering dedication to one's principles does, and will always attract, worldly success. It is because of that absolute and unwavering dedication to his principles that Socrates' death had such an effect on his contemporaries, and inspired some, like Plato, to create a movement around it. I'm not saying Socrates does it for the worldly success - no, absolutely not. But the worldly success follows like a shadow.

Ivan's famous Grand Inquisitor speech is about how Christ sets an impossible standard and thereby condemns nearly all of mankind — csalisbury

Why do you think so? To me the story is obviously about the hypocrisy of the Church, not about how they set an impossible standard. And most mankind is condemned because they deserve to be condemned, like most thieves are condemned because they deserve it. To me, the whole idea of changing moral standards so that more people meet them is nonsensical. Moral standards should be what they are, if you don't meet it, then so be it, admit it and move on. What's the difficulty of saying X is wrong but I still want to do it? At least then there is some dignity there.

Alyosha makes Gruschenka feel guilty — csalisbury

And shouldn't she feel guilty for what she has done? It is the guilt which redeems her, and which makes her do anything to pay for her sins. Without the guilt, no redemption would have been possible.

Katerina Ivanovna, in a weird twist, wants to be the one who redeems, and gets frustrated by those who won't allow themselves to be redeemed by her. — csalisbury

I think she's more like the person who has good intentions but ends up creating more chaos around her, because, as Trump would say, she simply can't get the job done.

Father Zossima makes the other monks resentful — csalisbury

The weak, always hate the great for some reason. I don't understand why they have to resort to such petty jealousies. I always admire greatness wherever I see it.

Fyodor Pavlovich is that he seems to have a genuine, deep understanding of the problematic — csalisbury

Why do you say this?

he can see through people, to their true motives — csalisbury

Really? >:O Then why does it happen to him? If he's so bright, he should have foreseen it. I'm speaking in a bit of coded language because it seems John hasn't yet finished the book?

Anyway, I think Fyodor is more like a big idiot who has a lot of power - and he shows precisely that if you are a big idiot with a lot of power you'll end up screwing yourself. Better to fix your character first.

I'd say, of the Karamazov family, I'm 1 part Alyosha, 3 parts Ivan, 2 parts Dimitri, 3 parts Fyodor, and 3 parts Smerdyakov — csalisbury

For me, it's 5 parts Zossima, 6 parts Mitya, and 1 part Alyosha.

Should we not move the book discussion to a separate thread? I'd want to join in, but I'm not sure if we should clutter this thread. What do you think @unenlightened or any of the other mods?

I don't think either, that Socrates' taking on death succeeded in founding an academy. I think he would be insulted that you thought that he died for anything other than in defence of his principles - a spiritual reason. — unenlightened

And tell me unenlightened, if Socrates had chosen to run away instead of accept death, would his principles have survived?

Earthly success is about survival and earthly prospering, as you say, if not for oneself then for the tribe, or for humanity, and I suppose, if you count the treasures of the Vatican, then Jesus' death was an earthly success. But I don't think Jesus counts them at all. — unenlightened

But it is an earthly success when your values and principles are passed on. Some like Genghis Khan are the fathers of 1000s of biological children. But others like Buddha, Muhammad etc. are the fathers of millions and billions of people, many of whom are ready to die for the same values they believed in and fought for.

A Stoic is supposed to be largely indifferent to such things as money, power, property, the opinions of others, what others desire, customs, and the more we speak of social organization and cultural values the more speak of such things as they relate to many people. — Ciceronianus the White

Are you sure? Seneca was the richest man in Rome. I'd say that rather than indifferent to money, they should be indifferent to the loss of money. If he was the richest man in Rome, he obviously had quite a large estate, which must have taken time to adequately manage. So he certainly invested that time, one wouldn't invest the time if they were completely indifferent to money - nor would they acquire the money-making skills.

Marcus Aurelius was Roman Emperor - he couldn't have been Emperor if he wasn't interested in power. The difference was just that he wouldn't sacrifice virtue for power - he had the right hirearchy of values.

desire for matters and things which are of no real importance — Ciceronianus the White

In relation to virtue they are of no real importance. But not absolutely.

I don't think a Stoic would do anything which would foster such concerns and desires and it seems our politics, at least, is entirely devoted to them. — Ciceronianus the White

I agree - a Stoic would be opposed to our consumerist society, which is built on greed and lust.

that's the end of the conversation — John

Ok, no problem! If it sounds like chest beating bullshit, then I surely deserve to know what you mean by that, before I shall tackle your other concerns. If you don't wish to accept even this request, then I don't feel compelled to answer you either.

On the face of it, it looks like you are moving the goalposts in a great hurry, because earthly, as in cockroachly success, certainly didn't include not surviving a few posts ago. — unenlightened

But do you think personal survival always makes sense? What if I die, and then my entire tribe gets to become a great kingdom that will last for 400 years, and if I had not sacrificed, then they would have been wiped out? If Jesus didn't accept crucifixion, nobody would have been a Christian today. Isn't that, in a way, survival too? If Socrates didn't take on death so defiantly, would the Platonic Academy have existed? Would Plato have been inspired to dedicate his life to philosophy? Probably not. If Socrates had not taken on death so defiantly, I too, probably would have never been interested in philosophy.

Certainly evolution and everything we know about natural science must be capable of explaining such sacrifices in terms of survival too. In fact, that's precisely what I claim - they - Jesus and Socrates - made a rational choice, anyone who was rational in their shoes should have chosen the same. It was a pragmatic question. In some instances it is foolish to choose your own survival because the costs of survival are too great.

You first, dude. — John

He who wants something from another has to accept the conditions on which they'll be given no? :P But the reason why I want you to go first is because I don't understand what you don't understand. "Fail in the world" is a common phrase I think. So what does that make you think about?

I had thought you would see immediately that a sane man can get crucified. — unenlightened

Indeed - but this only tells us that the sane man was also mentally strong, and sufficiently dangerous to the established order that there really was no other way to get rid of him - he can't be bought, can't be threatened, can't be guided, can't be manipulated, can't be stopped in any other way. His crucifixion is precisely the crowning of his Earthly as well as spiritual success. The fact he holds onto dignity and refuses to give up on the good just to live one more day - that's spiritual strength. And the fact that others resort even to killing him - that's a sign of his worldly success.

What exactly does it mean to "fail in the world"? — John

I will answer, but before I do, I'm curious just what you would understand by "fail in the world"? What images would this bring to your mind?

And with Jesus in mind, I suggest that sanity is fragile in that worldly sense; — unenlightened

I don't think so. Jesus died, like Socrates, on purpose. Some things are worth dying for, because when you die for them you make a point. And regardless, we're all going to die someday, might as well die for a great cause. But notice that their death didn't come from weakness or lack of worldly success - they were successful, that's precisely why they [the authorities] wanted to kill them. And they stood upright, and refused to yield and obey the authorities, and preferred death, rather than bowing down and giving up on their values. If they had bowed down, they would have already lost everything they were fighting for anyway. Death was a pragmatic solution, I would have chosen death in their situation too.

The Taoists and other Asian cultures seem to understand the relationship between worldly success and spiritual success. The two of them come together - it's impossible to succeed in the spirit and fail in the world. That's a schizophrenic Western conception that the good guy always loses. Why would anyone believe that? To me, there is no spiritual strength that fails to break through in the world. The spiritually strong remarks himself, he makes himself seen and heard. He is always a problem for the authorities and those in power - because he has the strength to disturb the created order.

Did you hear of Nick Vujicic for example? He has no arms and no legs, but because of his spiritual strength, he beats all those odds.

Have you met anyone that cuts themselves? Or has done so in the past? — Heister Eggcart

This is an interesting point. Pain and pleasure are somewhat close as feelings from a phenomenological standpoint. The distinction doesn't appear to me to be so clear cut. Many things, like for example warmth, are pleasurable. Increase the temperature too much and it becomes painful. The masochist enjoys harming himself as another example. We find that to be wrong and immoral simply because we understand that from an objective point of view, harming yourself has objective future ramifications, and it's not worth it for a mere subjective feeling.

One cannot say much about it in advance, and what is fit in one ecology may be unfit for another. — unenlightened

Yes BUT - take the cockroach. It is a species of insect that has evolved very little, if at all, in the past 300 million years. It is very adaptable, and not fragile to modifications in its environment - it can thrive pretty much regardless of environment. If you expose it to the same radiation level as Hiroshima for 30 days, 10% of its population survives. If there are no males around, the females can reproduce by themselves. They become immune to poisons and chemicals very rapidly. And so forth. Now, here's a creature whose survival is pretty much environment independent (I say pretty much because obviously there would be some extremely severe environments they wouldn't be able to survive in).

By analogy, I recognise for example that the mind/person that maximises flourishing (and survival) during a war environment is different from the mind/person that maximises flourishing during peace. The social skills that are required in peace are things such as mixing in well with others, lack of aggression, being part of the group, engaging in social activities like parties, drinking, sensitivity to others and so forth. The skills and mindsets that maximise the chance of survival in war on the other hand are controlled aggression, courage, daring, pragmatic intelligence, critical thinking, patience, resisting pain, decisiveness etc. But notice there is an asymmetry in terms of fitness between the two mindsets. The "war" mindset, let's call it, is superior to the "peace" mindset. It's true that during peace the person with the "war" mindset will have a harder time - he won't be as successful as the other guy. But he'll manage. But - during war on the other hand, the "peace" mindset is first to be exterminated, while the "war" mindset has a greater chance of survival. So in one situation the "war" mindset is significantly better than the "peace" mindset, and in the other situation it doesn't perform as well as the "peace" mindset, but well enough to ensure survival. So if one is to pick rationally, it seems to me that one will pick the more austere "war" mindset - because that covers more than one base as it were. Obviously I gave some extreme examples to show the point I'm trying to make, but this points to the possibility that there may be a series of characteristics which equate to mental strength across many radically different environments.

For Norman Normal, anything that deviates from current accepted practice is incomprehensible, and therefore probably insane - mad sad or bad. But Norman turns out to be mistaken if the deviance becomes accepted and society changes. At which point the madman retrospectively becomes the leader and hero. Just as the successful mutation becomes the new species, whereas the unsuccessful becomes the new disease. — unenlightened

But you see that's the thing. Norman Normal is as Taleb would say fragile. The environment changes, and he's gone. The deviant on the other hand, so long as he assures some degree of survival in the current environment, but stands to gain SIGNIFICANTLY from random changes in the environment is positioned at the right place, while Norman Normal is making a fatal mistake and is in fact sitting on a booby trap.

"progressive talk radio" — Bitter Crank

Alarm goes off :P

How'd you first get introduced to Berdyaev? — csalisbury

I'm not sure but I first looked into him as part of my interest in Russian thinking, along with authors like Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Turgenev, Lossky, Ivan Illyin, Solovyov, etc. What attracted me to him was his focus on religion (as I also am an Eastern Orthodox), and I first started by reading whatever I could get my hand of online from him mostly from here (the shorter works - the essays which interested me):
http://www.berdyaev.com/

Then I read two books - Philosophy of Inequality and The End of our Time, both of which I liked, and looked into a third - Spirit and Reality, which I've never finished. As for how I found out about Berdyaev - I'm really not sure, I can't remember to be honest. It may have simply been after googling Eastern Orthodox thinkers/philosophers.

What determined the order in which you read his books? — csalisbury

I guess it's my interests. I looked into works which interested me, mostly those which had political and religious elements interlinked in them.

No this thread isn't for me to defend any kind of idea. I made that clear in the opening post. This thread is for brainstorming, by everyone. I'm happy you're unhappy with my definitions - so go ahead and reframe them. Propose a different framework. Do whatever you think has to be done. Explore the subject. You don't need me to explore the subject. You can do that yourself.

If something is wrong, why not just describe that and tackle it head on? What does saying that one is "mentally ill," as opposed just describing behaviours actually add to the picture? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay, go ahead, do it. Let's see it. I will judge it, once I see it. So far it's all criticism what you're doing - nothing original. Stop sitting on the sidelines and get down in the ring. This thread is for everyone to contribute however they want, and however they see fit in the process of generating ideas and brainstorming. If you dislike the definitions, good! Do something about it, propose something different.

No of course not, because you focus on two fucking definitions instead of read what follows. First - I suggest that language/concept using animals are prone to mental illness. Hence mental illness is something that emerges out of this capacity of the mind to use language/concepts. That means that mental health too will emerge out of this ability to use language/concepts. That's very practical. Someone who knows that can suddenly have the break and realise that the way I see myself, the way I view myself, prevents me from getting to what I want. Or they can realise that, since their issues emerge out of a way their mind uses language and concepts and frames their situation, they can reframe it, they can find a different way to frame it, a way in which there is hope. Or they can realise that such a way to view their situation is fucking nonsense and useless. I love people, and I love helping people, but you seem to never see this. All you see is some image of me as an oppressor, because that fits your narrative. Anyway, it's up to them what they do or do not do with it - but they have many options available from which they can choose or not choose - it expands the options that are available. That's what thinking can do - outline PRACTICAL options and frameworks which could help solve problems.

Second idea I outlined, is that not all people who have experiences which are different from the norm are mentally ill - and thus such people shouldn't be medicated, but they should be helped to navigate their experience better - to linguistically frame it such that they are not handicapped. Again, you miss this - instead you keep stuck to some quibbling over definitions like a child. Fuck the definitions. Get down to business - real business, not nonsense!

It's interesting you should say that, I searched the book on Amazon earlier and found this in the lone review of it:
"It is written with a more unrestrained style than is usually found in Berdyaev's books. It is Berdyaev with the gloves off, fighting mad. (Berdyaev in a later postscript disavowed its angry tone, although he did not repudiate its ideas.)". — John

I did NOT write that review >:O


Regarding the angry tone, it is a political book, and the imminence of death forced Berdyaev to be authentic and true. That's what I like about it. It's truthful - there's no mish-mashing that is present in some of his other, more intellectual and less political works.

I think that very failure of the image of "mental illness" vs "mental strength" is the point. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay, replace the image then. Do something useful, don't just point fingers. We have to discuss by comparing notions. You just criticise. That's not very effective, because ultimately people choose between alternatives - nobody chooses criticism. So what's the alternative?

Which is not what you said in the OP. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes I said that in the OP as short form - as I said, instead of repeating the sentence and changing capacity with incapacity, I just wrote that.

and then punishing people for whom it doesn't work. It means we don't scapegoat people for failing to get better by our preferred method (and it will mean we don't deny them the opportunity to get better by some other means we happen to despise). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Who talked of scapegoating? The point was what works and what doesn't work, there's no scapegoating here. People are not punished for acting a certain way by anyone - rather their actions themselves will be punishments or rewards, depending on whether they work or not.

A person who goes it on their own actually describes behaviours which ought to be changed, rather than considering a nebulous notion of "mental illness" which requires some yet to be understood solution. I think there may be something of a practical effect here.

If one knows behaviours they ought to change, they can direct themselves towards achieving that. Well, some people can at least. It certainly gives more to go on than saying: "I'm mentally ill and need to be fixed." — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nowhere do you outline such behaviours, nor the means of changing them.

Pure capacity means nothing. The same capacity which is the capacity for good is also the capacity for evil. Have you read Plato? The same capacity which is the capacity for mental strength is also the capacity for mental weakness. Capacity without the qualification, capacity for "X", is meaningless. And so your definition of mental strength is also meaningless. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes I have read Plato, but I'm not interested in quibbling over notions - especially when you take words such as capacity, which I use in common parlance, and give them the technical meanings they have in some philosophies. So tell me how your understanding of capacity (which you take from Plato et al) helps you achieve or not achieve mental strength, or else I'm not interested in criticism which puts nothing better in its place. Then if you tell me that, I can see if there are problems with it - problems which will appear on a practical, not theoretical level, and I can let you know what I think.

should we blame ourselves in failing to make others see how learning actually works, should we make the utmost of the opportunity to deceive others while using their lack of awareness or should we concede failure ourselves because we don't comply with a majority? — Gooseone

We should try to make them understand.

I haven't considered that book yet. You seem to be suggesting it is his magnum opus. If so, why would say it is? — John

Because that's the book he wrote when it was very likely he was going to die - so the gloves came off. That's him at his most honest.

I see, thanks for sharing! (Y)

I have read Slavery and Freedom , Spirit and Reality and am reading Freedom and the Spirit — John

Quit playing around, and read Philosophy of Inequality by him ;)