So, just to give an example.

Ritalin is considered a "nootropic" due to its effects on memory consolidation and cognitive function.

Amphetamine is not typically considered a nootropic, yet, is more effective than Ritalin at treating ADHD.

Both are used to treat ADHD.


So, what gives? Again, behavioral effects are independent of cognitive enhancing effects.

I guess I just feel like one overlooked area in philosophical inquiry, particularly philosophy of the mind, is drug use-particularly 'natural' drugs like marijuana (or mushrooms, but they are more commonly cited) — Grre

I've been involved in the nootropics movement for a good 8 years. Marijuana by most standards is not considered a "nootropic". So, whatever falls under the category (which you seem to be searching for) of "nootropic" seems to imply that has some benefit to the discussion.

Now, there's the case of "behavioral effects" that are independent of what is considered "nootropic" in-of-itself. Is that the case here? I think so.

Although these are legitimate problems in their own right, I think we need to remove ourselves from the illusion that feminism as well as men's rights movements speak for all women and men. This is why I moved myself to the position of egalitarianism. — Anaxagoras

Isn't this the issue of reactionary movements? In that, because I don't have some such reaction, then does that posit that I don't apply to it?

There's a domain of psychology concerned with the study of crackpottery, it's called 'psychoceramics'. I feel as though you can't really philosophize about crackpottery.

You're asking me quite a difficult question. I'll get back to you later on this.

I do not see progress having been made in the state of the art of philosophy. There is good reason why there has been a resurgence of interest in the ancients. — Fooloso4

But, what about Wittgenstein? Don't you think he made his fair share of contribution to the state of philosophy?

What is it to practise 'extreme tenuousness' ? — Amity

You know... voluntary discomfort, cynic ethos, and the like?

In one case the possibility of content seems to be affirmed and in the other denied.

So here is Kripke's second move: he introduces fictional characters as abstract objects that are ontologically dependent (or grounded) on the existence of the fictional work as referents of such names. — Nagase

Yeah, you can see the issue of doing that if you apply the LEM hard enough? Either that or an ad infinitum kinda arises...

Edit: To phrase this another way. Does the description become the referent for abstract "objects"?

So, I'm going to use one of my old topics that seem to have some merit given my recent self-exile from starting topics, which deep down I just love doing.

Anyway, it's a topic that originated in this thread,

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5506/what-is-your-gripe-with-psychologypsychiatry-ask-the-clinical-psychologist

I asked Anaxagoras the following question, which I think is a topic worthy:

Given your experience with the whole industry of antidepressants and the obsession with magical, fast acting, immediate relief inherent biases out of the way, when do you think as a psychologist will the American system start treating (or catch up with places like Cambodia) where mental health as a social issue? — Wallows

So, this idea originally got bestowed upon me from watching a BigThink video about the psychologist explaining the fact that people go about treating depression as a social issue in other countries. The example provided was of a Cambodian farmer stepping on a land mine and losing his ability to farm. Following this, he developed a generic case of depression due to losing his livelihood and ability to function. The doctors listened to his problems and instead of prescribing him an antidepressant, took a more pragmatic approach and bought him a dairy cow. His depression abated and he was able soon to start a dairy farm with his impediment.

Now, taking this concept of psychiatry and psychology as treating problems and not symptoms, how far can we take this idea and implement it in places like the US? That is, to treat an issue as a social problem that an individual has?

Not sure how to proceed with formulating this view; but, that's the template. Any ideas thoughts and criticisms welcome.

I'm going to take an example that keeps on popping up in my mind, a la Plato, Marx, and others that progress has been made when the Holli Poli has been changed in some fundamental way.

Plato lays out his plan for how society or the Holii Poli ought to be governed in his Republic. Marx in his Kapital, while as per @Fooloso4, other philosophers take a more inward look.

What do others think?

Without them capitalism would not have survived, and we would be living under Communism. — Ilya B Shambat

I don't see how any of this follows, along with you're an apparent distaste for the Soviet bloc.

Check out Adam Smith and Ayn Rand. These were philosophers who conceptualized capitalism and arrived at its intellectual explanation. — Ilya B Shambat

While, I am aware of the immense popularity of Adam Smith on mercantilist based economics, and the resulting shift that happened, I find quoting Ayn Rand, somewhat random and misunderstood.

Science, in turn, comes from philosophy - a pursuit that many people regard to be bullsh*t. Philosophy and intellectual pursuits have also had a very large role in conceptualizing, justifying and popularizing capitalism. — Ilya B Shambat

Can you support this claim in any way shape or form?

By not showing any signs of emotion, stoics, therefore, control the effects that their emotions have upon their behavior (and therefore them), which is why it can work! — VagabondSpectre

Isn't that a very difficult way to the top of the mountain? I mean, you seem to get the idea that control and depression go together like horse and carriage, and based on my 18 years of dealing with personal depression.

Given your experience with the whole industry of antidepressants and the obsession with magical, fast acting, immediate relief inherent biases out of the way, when do you think as a psychologist will the American system start treating (or catch up with places like Cambodia) where, mental health as a social issue?

Feeling and expressing emotions gives us the benefit of experience, and in the future it helps us to recognize and check them when they become unproductive. — VagabondSpectre

This is very difficult for me as a wishful Stoic. As a man, I almost feel as if it is wrong in some way.

One blow that I remember dealing with was when I finally realized just how irritating I could be to the people around me (I was the clown who ran out of material, and a close friend cold-heartedly stated as much). I — VagabondSpectre

Oh, I can relate. I always assumed the double role of teachers pet (I just had the smarts to know what they wanted from a student effortlessly) and class clown.

Good times.

But the clown part kind of stuck with me and I learned that at work clowns are not tolerated, they tend to gossip a lot and are poor performers despite their performances.

Grows old after a while and you just become either happy or content or cynical.

It not me trying to pick anyone out or the OP in particular. You see Abrahamic religions in generally occupied with this... obsession?

I'm trying to draw out the motivation behind or driving this thread...

You mean as a thought or an obsession sort of thing that is happening with this thread?

Guilty. — unenlightened

Really? Then on your authority (you were even the person who dubbed my nick I borrowed from the old PF), I won't post anymore.

I don't get the need or desire to do so with such frequency. If I had that ability revoked, it wouldn't bother me that much in practice. There's already a million interesting enough topics to comment on. — S

I don't need a mediator, man. What I want is a jury. So, I'll sleep over this thread and see if anything magical happens.

Or, you know, just create less discussions. Or better ones. — S

Yeah; but, there's no solution if I can't make any more at all, can I? So, I guess it is what it is?

You're taking it personally, but we're doing what we always do which is trying to maintain quality. Tbh you could have gotten yourself banned for all the literal gibberish you were posting last week if some of us hasn't been sympathetic to you personally. So, that cuts both ways. — Baden

I have never been ungrateful and have always praised this place on the internet. But, if I can't post topics anymore according to what jamalrob has said, then I think I'd better so-to-speak;

1. Get emotional and decry heresy against my ego.
2. Work on a solution to the problem (jamalrob's one wasn't quite as helpful as the requests I have made about quality standards in the Shoutbox, which you actually provided and I've been quietly working on)
3. Just leave?

And, now I appeal to others to my defence or guilt of meeting with unspecified standards, which I hope on polishing up on as a fictitious homework assignment for me for Easter.

Ok, I'm going to cool off here and not get riled up jamalrob over you personalizing the issue along with Baden about my post quality.

My point is that you want me to self-censor, and I ask why again?

Is there something there that you'd like to see addressed in some way? What is the threat you're referring to? — jamalrob

I'm not going to become emotional here; but, isn't this quote in your sig:

To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.
—Frederick Douglass

Fine, your call.

Can, I post a pic of your implicit threat made via PM to me?

The one that started:

"There's a lot of talks around and about as usual about things."? — Baden

No, that thread was an issue regarding playing devil's advocate and attitude formation, which ultimately culminated in a version of developing an online 'reputation'. A guess it was a quixotic attempt at pointing out when it's OK (on an online forum such as this one) to play devil's advocate and when it isn't. A pertinent issue in my mind if you think about it, and don't think that I don't think about what you we're thinking about what I was thinking about.

The "Psychobabble" one was already in the lounge area, which kind of makes it redundant to delete already; but, I digress.

Ok, got the message.

Thanks.

When they’re dead. When they’re dead it is then for the rest of us to sort out what is of use to us or not without them making additional footnotes in order to scrape together the vague resemblance of “meaning” to what has been thoroughly torn to shreds by the analysis and critique of others. — I like sushi

Yeah, you get my drift. But, here wait for it... it's Whitehead with his claim that the (majority) of Western philosophy is footnotes to Plato... Now, how do you even respond to that?

Pragmatism is its own counterfactual stupidity. A hoodwinking of humanity’s creative eye and nascent faculties directed at “direction” itself - meaning exploration in the light of ignorance (ignorance the best moral attribute of humanity that we’re able to conceptual frame). — I like sushi

Then I take it you're not a fan of pragmatism. But, it's one of those books you read when things are going well, not when it's angsty or catastrophic or imploding, eh?

The issue goes quite deep, so if you don't mind here's my manifesto.

My father was cold, ruthless, and showed little to no emotions. Ok, I'll save you all the psychobabble and go straight to the gist. The gist is that I have trouble displaying affection, emotional attachment, and love other than that from my mother.

This is in part biological (schizophrenia), and psychological (put simply, having a con-man as a father figure).

Yet, most of my reasoning skills are somewhat intact. It's just the emotions that I don't know how to deal with.

Yes, you talk about love. How does it work? I know about reciprocity and empathy. I don't feel many emotions possibly due to the meds I take.

But, I'll harp on the issue of emotional maturity. It seems (as in the lyrics of that song), that there's some pragmatic function to be used or to use another.

The issue goes into my diagnosis as a schizophrenic at 17. I've read cases that people who have schizophrenia are stuck in development or something like that. The rational thing to think is it is because of the devastating psychosis that reoccurs with the diagnosis. Yet, almost ALL if not ALL mind EXPANDING drugs are psychosis-inducing. There's no other way to put it than disagree with the idea that schizophrenics are emotionally immature DUE to psychosis. So, it's most likely not due to psychosis but, some other alterations in the development of the prefrontal cortex and other areas of the brain during early adolescence and adulthood. Some areas reach maturity at 25.

I'm not going to sugar coat it, I don't like my emotions, I am afraid of opening up to a woman; but, want to feel like a man whilst laying beside her (not necessarily having sex).

So, here are the key points that should be noted for future reference:

I am emotionally immature and possibly impoverished due to schizophrenia.
I don't like my emotions. (Huge issue)


How do you deal with someone who is emotionally immature and (fear) from opening up?

I really think that emotionally, I'm not quite there yet. I've been told that I have an impoverished sense of emotions. Not to stereotype or pigeonhole myself here; but, I've never felt the love from another woman other than my mother. However, I do love my mother it's just unconditional and safe.

Is it fear here speaking? Or am I really emotionally kind off in the left field?

I have a love-hate relationship with Wittgenstein. On the one end, he impressed me immensely in my short life yet. On the other, he has spewed such (I may be wrong here) vile infelicity? towards the very subject, he was studying.

He sure stirred the pot a lot.

I’m an undergraduate philosophy major (currently) and I get a lot of “jokes” about my useless degree, what am I going to do with my life, ect. One time in a viscious argument someone once told me “I don’t know shit thats why I’m in philosophy”. — Grre

I would call it a vicious stigma to be honest.

I think a lot of (us) philosophy majors have become so acclimatized with this assumption that we joke about it ourselves and devalue it. — Grre

Now, that's where dangerous psychologizing of the subject can occur. Just in my opinion.

Philosophy has saved my life. I don’t think philosophy is about “auhority” over knowledge like in the other disciplines like science ect. its not about being right. its about asking question, about pursuing truth, about saving lives and see life-in many different ways. — Grre

Keep up the awesome job, despite what you or others might think.

Maybe we should start a scholarship in his name. It will be for nobody and the grant will be in the fictitious sum of nothing.

Ok, I should put in some effort. Isn't the whole point? I mean, philosophers are well known for doing nothing, and some outright say that they are really doing nothing or the car isn't going anywhere or that they should get real jobs. But, not to be too harsh on this construed straw man that I am doing right now, philosophy serves some purpose.

But, that's not the same as saying that there's no point in doing philosophy. There's a difference here that I'm trying to point out between pragmatism and something like existentialism. The two don't get along well, as the existentialist tells the pragmatists something and the other replies to go see someone who has authority on the matter.

OK, now I'm just plain bullshitting. Yet, we do that a lot in philosophy. It goes on round the clock and sometimes turns into some pop-psychology trivia or profundity.

To nail, the dam point is for me to ask, when does a philosopher have authority over... well, pretty much anything philosophical?

Haven't we been tunneling and digging and heaving at these problems that others disregard, outright call bullshit, or in the worst cases end up as psychological fluff?

I think the issue as I see it. Anyone else sees it from some different perspective? I for one see it as a paradox. Once someone calls themselves a "philosopher", they've violated the no-appeal to authoritarian rule, that ought to govern any liberal art science.

Ehh, if anyone has been following my ramblings if not on a benzodiazepine high, then if you are sincere and honest with yourself (can I get a show of hands on who are actually like that?) then what are you trying to accomplish here?

I know my purpose. It's just to wallow around here as this is a safe and special place on the internet, unlike no other which needs to be highlighted and exclaimed from every mountaintop. Nobody really likes me doing it; but, I do it regardless. Much of what I write is shit, and will never change your life in the positive or negative.