I wouldn't say you come off as a prick, but you sure come off as arrogant. — T Clark

What's arrogant about stating the obvious? Philosophy is such a wide field that if you want to be good at it, I suppose you need a higher IQ to be good at it...

If you want to say philosophy is useful, it might be implied by the fact that smart people do it, but it is more clearer shown, it seems to me, by showing its use. — Coben

I think, self-improvement is one aspect of philosophy that doesn't get mentioned enough. People are often drawn towards philosophy to improve their lives.

I can see that. It came off as a response to something. Either people are putting forward the opposite or a different opinion or something is making you thnk we need to know this. Could you tell me why you are saying this. — Coben

Well, philosophy is such an abstract endeavor that I feel as though people do it to become better people. Part of this feel good post of mine, which is trying to highlight that people should feel good about doing philosophy because it tends to enhance one's quality of life. It seems to me that people who are drawn to philosophy have a more sensitive mind than others along with a higher intelligence. That's just my take on it.

Hi Coben,

1) Philosophy is primarily for really smart people (there's even what I think is a Freudian slip in the double negative sentence regarding 'average IQ people being barred. Or it is it meant as a double negative, then my summation is even more correct.) — Coben

I meant to imply that most great philosophers that are known to us have had the quality of being exceedingly intelligent. Now, I wanted to highlight the fact that this doesn't necessarily mean that only high IQ people should only engage in philosophy; but, that they will likely attain a level of satisfaction, perhaps greater, than the laymen or people with average IQ's.

2) It's wrong of people to think philosophy is useless, for the mad, or impotent. — Coben

Yes, pretty much. It's like saying that theoretical mathematics has no application to hard sciences, which simply is false.

I think number two would be better supported by going into how it is useful and effective and for people who are not mad. Specific examples. Number one...I am not quite sure the point. Is the idea that since really smart people, some of them, have engaged in the activity, then philosophy must be useful? — Coben

Can you flesh this out a bit more?

Hi Anthony. What do you mean by saying that psychosis abates neurosis and anger?

Coming back to this thread...

I see anger as detrimental to personal growth and enlightenment. The Stoics knew very well about the issue of anger and how it affects the psyche.

But, let me give a new spin on the issue. Namely, anger is detrimental to a healthy and sound psyche in how it negates the possibility to overcome issues and wrong held beliefs. To frame this another way, anger presents to the psyche a lure of feeling righteous and justified in their sentiment held towards some issue or thing. When someone is angry with another person, that resentment or prejudice against them supersedes their entire mental picture of that person.

I have too long been guided by anger. It is a bad feeling that is all consuming. It detracts from the ruler within and is like a festering sore that prevents a person from feeling calm and relaxed.

We all know that anger breeds hatred.

A question. Why are so many people angry? What's so comforting about anger and hatred?

Scholars should take her philosophy more seriously given that we had and still do have people with bright minds who adopted her philosophy. Alan Greenspan talked about her with exaltation...

Worrying.

Cheers.

On the Wikipedia page regarding Identity Formation, there is listed a rather straightforward breakdown of identity formation in the young.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_formation

James Marcia created a structural interview designed to classify adolescents into one of four statuses of identity. The identity statuses are used to describe and pinpoint the progression of an adolescent's identity formation process. In James Marcia's theory, the operational definition of identity is whether an individual has explored various alternatives and made firm commitments to: an occupation, religion, sexual orientation and a set of political values.

The four identity statuses in James Marcia's theory are:[6]

Identity Diffusion (also known as Role Confusion): This is the opposite of identity achievement. The individual has not yet resolved their identity crisis, failing to commit to any goals or values and establish future life direction. In adolescents, this stage is characterized by disorganized thinking, procrastination, and avoidance of issues and action.[5]

Identity Foreclosure: This occurs when teenagers accept traditional values and cultural norms, rather than determining their own values. In other words, the person conforms to an identity without exploration as to what really suits them best. For instance, teenagers might follow the values and roles of their parents or cultural norms. They might also foreclose on a negative identity, the direct opposite of their parent's values or cultural norms.[5]

Identity Moratorium: This postpones identity achievement by providing temporary shelter. This status provides opportunities for exploration, either in breadth or in depth. Examples of moratoria common in American society include college or the military.[5]

Identity Achievement: This status is attained when the person has solved the identity issues by making commitments to goals, beliefs and values after extensive exploration of different areas. — James Marcia

In the above analysis, I believe unrestrained use of the internet leads most often to Identity Diffusion, with an added component of Identity Moratorium. What do others think of this?

Failure to achieve a stable identity and role in life predate the Internet. — Bitter Crank

And yet, I contest, that it's exacerbated by the internet.

You keep speaking authoritatively about how the internet is bad for the development of identity, but you don't provide any support beyond "seems to me...." — T Clark

Do you spend any time on Facebook, Tinder, or Twitter?

You can see this post again:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/301866

I feel like the problem arises out of a basic emotional disconnect. People fail to awknowledge that they are interacting with others online. The situation is one of a generalized anomie. Everything is supposed to be as if everyone is connected, but, often times, online engagement can just simply be further alienating. — thewonder

That's one of the cruxes of the internet. It's a substitute for feelings of loneliness, boredom, sadness, angst, and anger, which are all of these important things that prod an individual towards forming an identity. If you have a reality where anything goes, then people become more estranged from themselves. I mean, it's not the Matrix... yet.

Well, some people are considering leaving a child with a PC to the internet, as 'benign neglect'. I think there's some merit to this idea, given what can be found on the internet. Back a while ago, before super-algorithms were around and about on the internet, it was way too easy to find pornography on the internet, for a child. Nowadays, Google, Facebook, and others rely on a combination of algorithms and human moderators to filter content. The internet is becoming a more sanitary environment due to this; but, I wonder what this all leads towards.

The bubble of like-minded internet associates not different in kind from the bubble of rural life in the 18th century, for example. The commodification is no worse than that of slavery, serfdom or industrial exploitation etc. — unenlightened

So, then the issues of inadequacy or social approbation become sublimated on the internet, where one can exercise their issues with other unknowing interlocutors. And, if one's ideas are met with hostility or outright banning, then one can always get a VPN to hide their IP address, and return to troll the would-be oppressors.

ALL of this existed before the personal computer and the Internet. Long before. — Bitter Crank

Then, maybe correlation does not imply causation; but, the internet sure can amplify these dysphoric moods.

This is what Erikson had to say about identity formation:

Erikson's belief is that throughout each person's lifetime, they experience different crises or conflicts. Each of the conflicts arises at a certain point in life and must be successfully resolved for progression to the next of the eight stages. The particular stage relevant to identity formation takes place during adolescence, called "Identity versus Role Confusion."[4]

The "Identity versus Role Confusion" stage consists of adolescents trying to figure out who they are in order to form a basic identity that they will build on throughout their life, especially concerning social and occupational identities. They face the complexities of determining one's own identity. Erikson said this crisis is resolved with identity achievement, the point at which an individual has extensively considered various goals and values, accepting some and rejecting others, and understands who they are as a unique person.[5] Once an adolescent has attained identity achievement, they are ready to enter the next stage of Erikson's theory "Intimacy versus Isolation" where they will form strong friendships and a sense of companionship with others. If the "Identity versus Role Confusion" crisis is not solved, an adolescent will face confusion about future plans, particularly their roles in adulthood. Failure to form one's own identity leads to failure to form a shared identity with others, which could lead to instability in many areas as an adult. The identity formation stage of Erik Erikson's theory of psychosocial development is a crucial stage in life. — Erikson

I don't think it really needs to spelled out; but, here is the gist. Identities are retarded by the anonymity that one can have on the internet. People who don't feel comfortable in their skin or around other people, are at a predisposition towards the addictive qualities of the internet, along with exacerbating their neurosis. Adolescents are drawn towards the fantasy of the internet, or some choose to intellectualize endlessly. Then, there's something to be said about defense mechanisms, which are amplified by the opaqueness of intent and personality on the internet.

I mean just read the above... I think Erikson would claim, if he were still alive to this day, that the internet is the anti-thesis to forming a healthy identity for adolescents and youth.

Were there any outcries of the TV, as a new form of entertainment, and the dying off of radio in your days? I know a lot of sentiment was geared against the TV, despite its overwhelming saturation in every part of the market segment, from advertising, to just about anything to this day...

Yes; but, this isn't a matter of opinion anymore. Just check the Wikipedia article on Cyberpsychology.

Although even as someone close to 30 years older than you, some of us (at least those who were kind of nerdy at the time) already had home computers while we were in our teens (so the end of the 70s/beginning of the 80s in my case), and we were already socializing--and arguing/"debating" etc. with strangers online. Just in cases like mine we're talking about Radio Shack and Commodore computers, and calling local BBS numbers instead of using the Internet. — Terrapin Station

Yes, the internet is detrimental to personal growth in my opinion. Reactions to this sentiment can be found in Jordan Peterson, and Marxist criticisms of the commodification of personality, as per the quote provided above by @fdrake. Russia is going so far as to create their own intranet that is divorced from the rest of the world. China already has their version of the internet. The Arab Spring was a wake up call to the Iranian clerics, that minds are easy persuaded.

Now, introduce to this whole situation an empty, absorbent, and young mind, and the situation seems rather precarious.

How the internet influences childhood development is one thing, how it influences the maintenance, expansion or diminishment of (sufficiently) adult agency is another. I don't care to speculate on the first. — fdrake

Then let us know about the latter part? The internet seems to promote dis-inhibition in the form of sharing personal details, deep feelings, insecurities, fears, and other prominent psychological facets. What's your take on that?

The internet is a series of biased sampling methods from the set of possible social relationships you may attain. — fdrake

So, based on your view, how does this bias affect the development of one's identity for young children. I mean, assuming unrestricted access to any website (as is often the case for non-tech savvy parents).

The unique opportunities for socialising and making friends in the medium exploit its biases. — fdrake

Yes, so explain to us readers what biases are they and how do they manifest?

In those regards, it depends a lot on how you use it. — fdrake

This statement assumes a well developed sense of agency on the part of the user, which doesn't seem to be true in most cases for children. Even adults have trouble regulating themselves on the internet, very often.

I'm saying 'will-power' should be considered as referring to the expression of motivation, but not the cause of motivation. For behaviour is goal-driven, and the causes of motivation are incentives. — sime

That sounds awfully behaviorist.

Unfortunately, society has a habit of referring to motivated people as being 'self motivated', which is illogical and leads to the social stigmatization and neglect of depressed people, who often depend on society to provide them with meaningful incentives. — sime

I don't quite think this is right. How would you explain the clinical symptom of anhedonia?

Thanks Alan, I try.

Further reading in case anyone is interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpsychology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_effects_of_Internet_use

Now, a whole other realm of the insidious part of the internet is online advertising. Google's motto used to be "Don't be evil.", I still think Google is a great company, and enjoy many of their products; but, when things grow to such gigantic proportions that is Google, is when flaws and issues become more glaring. The whole premise of online advertising is based on the illusion of self-gratification or instant reward.

Psychoanalyzing a little bit, anger and outrage get the most clicks. Corollary, feelings of inadequacy intensify by promoting a picture of one's self that is eternally happy or joyful. Thus, one becomes angry at being sad or sad at being sad or a whole range of mixed emotions that arise from skewed realities formed by one's online persona.

If I were to rewrite Plato's Republic for our modern age, I would not encourage the use of the internet for anyone before at least a wholesome age. As a factual, advice, it's said that children nowadays spend 6 hours of their daily waking hours interacting with some medium. One can imagine what this can lead to in terms of family relationships and interpersonal skills.

As a sentiment perhaps. But willpower isn't a scientifically admissible cause of human action. Rather, willpower is the force one exerts in the pursuit of an incentive. Depressives most often lack the latter, rather than the former. — sime

So, you are equating the two here? If so, then what does that mean?

Here's the full study in Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45812-w

Better read the article and prepare myself for disappointment ... — I like sushi

Nope, no disappointment. DMT was found in the neocortex and hippocampus, not exclusive to the pineal gland, which makes the role of DMT in the brain all the more complex. We might see a day when those with abnormally high levels of DMT produced, such as schizophrenics or bipolar people (my hypothesis), or too low, depressives, be administered drugs that either block or promote its activity on respective receptors.

No actual hard evidence as yet. Guess we’ll have to wait a few more years/decades before this discovery is made ... obviously, I’m fairly convinced but let’s not assume what isn’t proven just yet. — I like sushi

Well, it's about as close you're gonna get to make a comparison with a human brain. I mean, you can't really dissect a human brain.

Tiff needs a cheerleader!

You can do it Tiff!

I talked about this with a friend economist, and the conclusion we arrived at is that prostitutes will become a highly demanded good in our post-AI future.

he has told me he wanted to die just to be with her but also doesn't want to die because I remind him of her. — DeadLight

This is a very tricky situation, as if he was goading you into conforming into his image of his previous significant other. But at the same time it's unacceptable for you to not be yourself with him. I hope others can help you more.

Cheers.

Hi,

I think you are kind and good hearted. I would be careful for being used as a template onto which another might project their desires and wishes onto, where you would comply, but eventually feel anguish on both sides for not being bona fide.

I wish you well.

So, I think I finally found something that will pin my father down in court. Under US law, you are required to report earnings, property, and assets held in/from foreign countries, to the IRS. My father in his deposition to the court testified that he worked and rented the house we lived in overseas during his time there.

We obtained his 2017 tax report, and there is no mention of assets held in the foreign country or earnings he made over there. In fact, during the whole 15 years spent in that country, I don't think he once reported anything to the IRS about income derived from the stock market (which he invested heavily in), properties, or work-related activities.

Now, my mom and I are pressing him to disclose his 2018 taxes, which he reluctantly is trying to avoid due to showing to the court that he can make enough money to subsist and live well off.

I was told by our attorney that these tax reports and discrepancies with his deposition might not affect the outcome of the trial; but, will show his propensity to lie.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to use this information towards the goal of attaining a favorable judgment by US courts? We also have joint-filled tax reports during the period of their marriage in the US, showing a good sum of money earned here, being funneled eventually into said foreign country. My hope is to show, net income for the duration of the 15-20 years worked in the US, which eventually got mostly transferred to said foreign country, and present to the judge the picture of our current state of affairs.

Scary what these primal urges can do to a person or in what trouble they can land him or her in. Hence, why I chose a life of celibacy.

All boils down to a matter of willpower, which I have analyzed endlessly. People demand that the world change them, and in this sentiment, weakness is born. Quite Nietzscian.

Which ones? — god must be atheist

Nagel, Quine, Pinker, Chomsky just off the top of my head.

It's just another thing to recognize as outside of your (direct) control. — Moliere

That's a bitter pill to swallow. There are countless ways to get into and out of depression. I admire the folk that is stuck in between and manages with it as best they can.

To suggest that a consensus has any implication for "right" normatives is to commit the argumentum ad populum fallacy. So no, I wouldn't at all agree with that. — Terrapin Station

The ad populum fallacy sounds like something a rationalist or any person with authoritarian tendencies might advocate. It's a topic worthy issue, as to whether group consensus overrides individual inclinations or knowledge, as it often does. I suppose Rawls would have something to say about this.

And I'd add: "What one is doing when one makes such an utterances is stating how one feels, or stating one's preferences." — Terrapin Station

Yeah; but, if we take the summum bonum of all net preferences and tastes, then for interpersonal relations, some consensus can be derived. And, this is how you can derive an ought from an is. Is this in align with what you have said already?

I agree that if Hume's sentiment is that reason is the slave of the passions, it is not entirely true. — Galuchat

To what degree can reason influence emotions? I'm aware of higher brain functions ability to suppress impulses and direct behavior. Yet, to what extent, "valence dimensions" can be appraised by reason is something that I would be interested in uncovering.

Normatives are value statements, preferences that individuals have. — Terrapin Station

Here's what Wikipedia says:

In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are (purportedly) factual statements that attempt to describe reality. — Wiki

And, you say here:

I was saying that foundational moral stances can't be reasoned, because of the is-ought problem. No fact(s) can give you a foundational moral stance. You only "feel" your foundational moral stances. That's emotion/preferences. — Terrapin Station

So, this leads me to believe that you either don't believe in ought statements or that you stipulatively use normative claims as not value apt. What is it then?