Gotta think you're worthy in order to be comfortable with owning anything, including negative things. Are you entitled to asshole status? (as an example, not calling you one). The trick is to earn it, and not just rationalize it, but take the judgement of those around you in order to ground you in your entitlements, good and bad.

I work hard at all of my jobs, even this one, so that those around me will feel that I'm entitled to it. I behave so as the world witnesses my entitlements.

I rather turn it around, and think that thinking that I was too entitled, and beyond reproach would be worse than thinking that I was fatally flawed. Great philosophers and religions are predicated on this notion. Not much room for improvement for the already perfect. Though no point in improvement for the completely worthless and broken. Somewhere in the middle is best, I'd think.

I wonder if now we've begun to practice the topic, rather than discuss it abstractly?

I just naturally gravitated to intellectual pursuits since I was young, because everyone always told me how smart I was, and even though no one around me is interested, or knows fuck all, I still do it. Reached a point where my cultural capital is rarely matched.

Safety? Comfort? Lack of negative stigmatizing judgement? Sounds awful.

I don't much believe in mental illness beyond the functional kinds. You can talk, and walk, then you're pretty much fine. Not like everyone else is perfectly connected to reality. Not like everyone else maintains perfect control, or has deep insights into their emotions and motivations. All that matters is that they're able to get the job done. If they want a sandwich, so walk outside and maw the lawn, then something is up, but if a sandwich comes to them as a result then things are working smoothly.

I don't want to have other people pay my way, or take care of me. I don't want sympathy, or pity. I want respect, and high regard, which for the most part, I definitely get. Get less making less money, but it was never where I got my self-respect from in the first place. I was just using the extra money on recreational drugs, and helping people that were unwilling to help themselves, and ultimately resented me for it anyway. I couldn't take the competitive stress, or needy attention anymore, and minus those expenses, and I don't really have less. Bills are paid, food in the fringe, new games in the console, what more could I want? I can't afford too bad of habits now, which is better for me.

The diagnosis isn't like mean, or meant to keep you down or something. Treatment is about improvement at the very least, and ideally cures. Most everyone involved I'm confident really wants to help. It's easy to stay on disability though. Right now with my shitty job, I make less than the people on disability, and have to work for it. Everyone in my family is on some kind of assistance, or disability, and have legitimate concerns, but I never have been. I also have crippling disorders, and experience psychotic breaks from time to time, which would almost certainly get me disability if I wanted it. I have a hard time accepting any help in general though, besides that I would decay with nothing to do, and no schedule. Not one is forcing me, or twisting my arm.

Ideally I'll go undiagnosed with anything until I'm forcefully committed, and plan to only stay on this job until I can get unemployment, and then go back to school (not the same thing, as I'm paying for that). I have to avoid stress though, as my control is always precarious.

I didn't make it about me... I was clearly discussing only what I understood to be the topic, although my first post was indeed a passing comment about me, and then I was asked to engage the topic, which I did without talking about myself.

Then my motives were questioned, so it seems fair to address them. How else am I supposed to respond to the accusation of investment, and close-mindedness? If it was merely goading, then I'm immune, if it was sincere, then I'm entitled to defense. Entitled like a princess.

And because that hurts me feelings, I'll name call back, only I'll actually be right. What you're doing just looks like motivated reasoning to me: "The processes of motivated reasoning are a type of inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled "motivated reasoning". In other words, "rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe".[2] This is "a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives"."

Your justifications for not accepting the criticisms, and maintaining the position seems clearly motivated. Whereas, I don't give much of a fuck at all about this, and just like you, and reading and interacting with you. That's my motivation. I may even be motivated to argue with you, but I'm not particularly invested in any positions of this subject.

If the remarkable figures were true, it would have become standard practice.
If the remarkable figures were true, they would have been investigated. — unenlightened

Firstly those two propositions are not accurate representations of what I said, and clearly the second should come first to bring them even close. Why would I have some deep investment in the antithesis anyway? Like a closed-minded adherence to the standards?

I don't think that it's fair to reword what I said to sound sillier, and then call me dogmatic as a response. Furthermore, to go on to undermine the definition of schizophrenia seems silly. Also consider that it is genetic, and highly heritable. People that have never even met their parents, or had socialization problems still manifest the condition, from what I understand. I read an article about a dude that discovered that he was part of a eugenics project that tried to foster genius progeny, and his father ended up being a paranoid schizophrenic that lied about his credentials, and background (when the programs creator couldn't get Nobel laureates he shot a little lower in seedy hotels), and he had fostered many children. The article was about his experience as his condition began to manifest itself in his twenties.

Not that I know a lot about it, but I just noticed that the success rate claimed is nearly twice that of what should be expected. That ought to get a lot of attention. Why hasn't it? Because they cure them so fast that their condition becomes undiagnosable? The mainstream are all too dogmatically attached to the standard treatments and closed minded to care?

There isn't much I can say to any of that. The claims are apparently both unconfirmable, and denied out of closed-mindedness...

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/marvin-ross/schizophrenia-treatment_b_4254350.html

That's what I read. Why I find it persuasive is because those numbers are remarkable, and if it were true why isn't it quickly becoming the standard treatment? Why it is not even really being substantially investigated? The article suggests that it's simply because the results aren't nearly as remarkable as that documentary claims. Not in fact as good as the standard treatment from what it looks like.

I was attempting to discuss it in a wider fashion. I of course was attempting to find points of disagreement, as that is where views are honed. Nodding in agreement isn't the super bestest path to refinement in my view. My basic idea that that talk therapy is unquestionably great, definitely the best kind (though I was thinking generally, and not in the most extreme psychiatric cases.), but it just isn't the same thing as peer to peer dialogue, and probably can't be. What I saw you suggesting is a narrowing of the gap between kind of teacher and pupil. Doctor and patient, and I wished to explore exactly how harrow that gap could get, while being skeptical that it could be closed.

If that makes sense.

The documentary sounds pretty full of shit to me. I look up their claims and can't find any actual support for them, but can find information that suggests that much of it clearly isn't true, and what may be simply hasn't even been properly investigated.

The documentary seemed pretty wild and slanted, so I couldn't help but look for some support for its claims, of which there is nothing substantial, and things that indicate that their results are not different at all for schizophrenics, and half as good for psychotics as the standard treatment.

I thought that it was about just mental illness is general, and talk therapy is definitely great with respect to that, I didn't realize that the claim was that it was revolutionary for even the most extreme of psychotic disorders as well...

I'll go back through, and watch that video that you linked, which I haven't done. Try to find what I'm missing. A third party intervention is always welcome. You can always just ignore me if you think what I've said or am saying is too unrelated, left field, or mark-missing. That's what I'd do.

It doesn't have to be different. I'm just saying what I think of what I'm gathering. Though I don't have the greatest amount of faith in communication, if I did I'd probably talk more.

I'm not a big believer in teaching, only in learning. One has a capacity for learning, not for teaching. With a capacity for learning, one can learn from a broom stick, if it has anything worth learning. I can't imagine a capacity for teaching that could teach a broom stick anything. For this reason, I believe only in the former.

That said, no one speaks to a child as if they can already talk, they lower themselves to their level. They mimic them, and learn from them, and make baby noises, and attempt to get them to say single key words through enough repetition eventually. They never just speak to them like they would a peer, and it would be pretty bad parenting to do that as well, I would think.

The reason that the parent is an authority figure is because they can observably, manifestly operate, and interact with the world in ways that result in responses that work, and bring the results that they desire. Like magic, like god, to the uninitiated. So that the child plays at mimicry, in an attempt to raise themselves to the parents level, and the parent attempts to lower themselves to the child's, in order to communicate, or play, or whatever.

I'm not opposed to religion. Of course my super intelligence makes me immune to group think. :p

I don't understand. Are you attempting to reject, or downplay the notion that parents are authority figures? That adults in general are to a less extent, and even elders are to adults? It definitely isn't like a logical necessity or anything, and they definitely aren't authorities on every single thing, but this is still clearly the case. The relationships differ. If you disagree then I don't know what to say, other than that I think that people believe that they have more control over their perceptions and sentiments than they actually do. Vastly less. Take for instance racism. Some deny that they're racist by denying racism, or that there is anything other than totally justified behaviors going on. Others only deny that they are racist, but attempting to be all on their side, and not say or do the wrong things, and learn how to behave to not give that perception. But perception is not reality. Same with sexism. Both just deny that it's true of them, just with differing strategies.

That's an obvious one, but less obviously, we have prejudices about what form a therapist takes as well. Their dress, their demeanor, their age, their level of hygiene and a million other things prime your apprehensions, and how you will understand them, and find them credible. There will be variation, but it's still always true (even when people find someone interesting or credible for subverting their expectations, the opposite is the same thing). I'm not even positive that infants are free of prejudice, as we may very well be born with unconscious archetypes.

Point being, that we can't just decide to see things anyway we want to, or feel any way that we choose. That's a recipe for denial and self-loathing in my view.

The relationship one has with one's parents is quite a different thing. There are of course some horrible parents, but mostly there is no fear of rejection, only reprimands. When you go to a therapist, at least where I'm from, you're asked to not show up early, so as to give their other clients enough time to gtfo of there before anyone sees them. They're first to talk about all of the confidentiality, and how it all stays with them. They then tend to hold quite strongly to the notion that a hell of a lot of problems stem from shame, and social rejection and what not. Why do they do all of that? Why do their clients care for such secrecy?

Similarly, why are parents embarrassing? Why can't they walk you right up to the school as a kid? Why can't they come to your cool parties?

Authority figures are not nearly as dangerous, nor interesting as peers are. Not that they aren't important, or influential, but not nearly as much as peers.

With antisocial children, I've read that they seem to be done by four. If they aren't properly socialized, so that they're too mean, violent, or prone to withdrawal at four, so that their peers reject them, then they're pretty well done. Arguably all of the most important parenting takes place just up until they can talk.

Well, I think that this mutual co-creation is clearly the case with peers. The question for me is if such a relationships between, like patient and therapist could ever be one of peers. I think that we have something that tracks that sort of thing. Potential competitors, lovers, friends, which are peers. A lot of it has to do with just age alone. We are socialized, and grow together, and can get stagnated through one form of isolation or another. Usually there is something someone isn't talking about, isn't dealing with with others, and this remains unsocialized, undeveloped, grows wildly without being checked with feedback, and it is this sort of thing that therapy is for. The sorts of things no one will talk about, or can talk about.

The question is, can it be developed, and socialized like it naturally would be in a peer to peer relationship?

Something like that is my diagnosis.

Bråten (1992, 2007) describes the Virtual Other as an innate part of the baby’s mind that, in a way, waits for a dialogue with the Actual Other. If the Actual Other is not present, the dialogue emerges with the Virtual Other. Near relations take place in the mode of felt immediacy, in feelings that are felt in a pre-linguistic form (Seikkula & Trimble, 2005).

Since I rarely if ever talk to anyone, that's my general mode of being.

A "mild form of robbery" as Mill put it.

Ignorance is bliss, but knowledge is power. Which would you prefer?

Though, the expression comes from a poem, in which it is qualified. That when ignorance is bliss, then it is folly to be wise. It isn't stated categorically.

Something like that. It's all serious, and super justified. Quite a progressive anime. I'm glad that I'm not the only one that thinks it's fucking hilarious.

I do prefer the old fashioned chauvinists. Renji takes his woman beating way more seriously, and can't seem to find the justification.

Equality is great. That's why this is totally cool now:

It's equality, they're super powerful tiny girls. Totally justified.

"Losing face" is a semantic loan from Chinese. Two interestingly things about it. Firstly the Chinese have like a hundred expressions about losing face, but only a few about gaining it. Secondly, if you look into it you'll notice that the expressions deeply intertwine status and ethics, to such an extent that studies suggest that natives in their mid twenties and below cannot discern a distinction at all.

So, in reading up on it, you'll be convinced that it only has to do with prestige.

The face you can gain, is only in relation to status and perception, whereas the one you can lose with respect to ethics cannot be regained.

That people disown, or have nothing to do with members of their families is like terrible, because families are all love or something. That suggestion is fantasy. Not just some places, or the people that "leave home" either. We all treat strangers better than "loved ones". We reserve only the most hateful speech and violent acts for loved ones.

The unfamiliarity of strangers tends to keep us scared enough to stay in line. We only act like our monstrous selves around people that we "love".

I maintain that people that keep up appearances of decency, even to their closest kin are the worst for sure.

People disown members of their families for lots of petty reasons. Sometimes for no reason at all, and don't give it much of a second thought, because you're attention demanding, and they're too self-centered for that. People that get hit hard by that suggestion annoy me. They must have come from some tv family.

Are evangelical Christians evil? What would it mean if they were? Don't listen to them, at the very least. Perhaps disband them. Lock them up? Burn them all? What kind of question is that? Particularly as a collective identity? Obviously, it being true is impossible, taken at face value. Only sociopaths can be guaranteed to be sociopathic as a collective.

It just sounds like a defaming non-serious question by something antagonistic to them to me. Are they not quite human? Are they criminal, evil?

To psychologize in reverse, I've heard that when someone disagrees with you, you think one of three things, in progressive fashion. Firstly, you're ignorant. Well, you just don't have the facts. Don't know what I know. But if I know that you do have the facts, then I think you must be stupid. Can't draw the proper conclusions from them, because you're just too fucking stupid. Only after I assume that you're informed, and also intelligent do I assume that you must be evil. As you know the truth, but you're still pretending it's not the truth for some reason... some evil reason...

Thankfully, the good anti-religious among us think that they're all just ignorant, or morons. We don't think enough of them to elevate them to the status of evil.

Science has all of the answers, and philosophy has none. It's about asking questions. Even the biggest novice knows that it's about asking "deep" and "profound" questions.



The problem with just getting answers to our questions is that it takes far too much for granted. I think that philosophy is a journey that dissolves our questions into mirrors.

In the hitchhiker's guide, restaurant at the end of the universe there are genetically engineered talking cows that can't wait to get eaten that help you pick out which part of them to have for diner. The protagonist is taken aback, and shocked by this, and refuses to pick any part of it, or eat the cow, when he is asked if he would prefer to eat something that doesn't want to be eaten.

Wouldn't mind me some sandwich trees either. I could go for a freshly ripened sandwich right about now.

Peers.

I'm always doing that! I'm just sneaking it past the conscious mind is all, to influence you on a deeply spiritual level, see?

Purposes seem like a lot of work... I'm pretty lazy...

In relation to the people on this forum, I'm fairly new to philosophy. The reason why I'm writing this post is that I've hit a wall recently, in that I can't honestly accept anything to be true but I'm also too early into studying philosophy to remedy this. — Bryan

Do you accept as true that you don't accept anything as true? You couldn't possibly if you don't accept anything as true, so that itself can't be true, and you probably accept many many things as true.

By reading this you forfeit your soul to me.

It was as expected. McGregor doesn't have great stamina, look at his fights with Diaz. When he can't knock them out within the first few minutes he gases out, and even his sparring partners said that he didn't want to train for stamina, and wanted to quit when he got tired. Diaz said that he could punch hard for like six minutes, and then he wouldn't be as dangerous.

Mayweather played it smart, and played defensively without barely throwing a punch in the first few rounds, waiting for him to lose energy, and get past the point where Mcgregor could actually throw dangerous shots, and then closed in.

Though I will say that Mayweather claimed that he wouldn't play it defensively, and would come after him from the get go, but didn't.

As expected, but not as hoped. Everything worth watching is a spectacle. That's what a spectacle means...

Only someone that doesn't understand that philosophy is lived, and not simply lipped would say "pfft, maybe in philosophy, but what about your real life?".