Yes, and sometimes delusions. For example I will think (delusionally?) that radio broad casts have messages for me, and I can hear them. I don't know if its interferences or just my mind making up stuff while I listen. This doesn't happen often, though. — Josh Alfred

I've been for a while now interested in the phenomenon of delusions. I recall that I had some when my psychosis first started. Some of them included believing that I had parasites in my intestines. I tried understanding delusions as a form of cognitive distortion on steroids. What are your thoughts about delusions? By definition, they are distorted beliefs or false beliefs; but, how they arrive at their faulty conclusion is quite a mystery.

My other paranoia I equate to social anxiety. I get very nervous when having to do things outside my home and comfort zones. I also trouble talking on the phone, because I think I won't know what to say -- its apprehensive. — Josh Alfred

Do you take any medication for your disorder? I take Zyprexa and Zoloft. The Zyprexa helps me stay calm and stable. The Zoloft is pooping out and I'm unsure what to change it to.

I wouldn't mind reading Mackie's Inventing Right and Wrong. — Snakes Alive

Interesting nuanced choice. What got you interested in it? I'm reading the Amazon description and it sounds as if one we're to take Moore's naturalistic fallacy to the extreme and claim what is described there. By "inventing" are we just re-hashing the idea that it's only a social construct?

What about the golden rule?

So, I hope we can lay down the topic of definite descriptions to rest, and simply say that under certain circumstances definite descriptions are or can be essential in maintaining or designating an object among many others that might obfusticate the referent, by a name. Accepting this proposition kind of solves a lot of issues that have been talked about in my opinion.

If someone were to ask, where is Hesus in Spanish, the referent might be ambiguous as it's a very common name in Latin America. But, had I said where is the Son of God? Then, I believe the issue disappears despite there being no name that would designate such an entity or person.

Perhaps I should mention that in the Judeo-Christian traditions God most often has qualities of subjecthood. I don't know many religions that ascribe meaning onto God without giving him or her or it some qualitative manner...

I think as mentioned previously, definite descriptions can be categorized under certain conditions as rigid designators. What do you or anyone else think of this?

Do these sound like attributes which are normally predicated of God? — Janus

Yes, they do sound like attributes we ascribe to God.

It is mostly a tiring effort. Like a flat tire that needs to be constantly inflated. Anyway, idiotic analogies aside, the issue is that reason, in some transcendental sense, is always in need of being applied along with critical thinking skills to convince myself that when I do have the loopy thoughts. A great deal of time, for me, is centered around trying to stay sane and cogent.

Generalizing, I think self-doubt or self-criticism is a prominent feature of anyone with a mental disorder. There's a great deal of becoming prone to depression, anxiety, pessimism, and such.

Though, not in all cases is this true. Having a solid support group or family in helping you is perhaps quite essential to feeling secure and safe.

That's all I can think up.

Question: do your afflictions interfere with every level of life, or are there some levels, activities, aspects of being, that seem immune? — tim wood

The fish has no idea what the water feels like.

Do you have a significant difference in mind between 'economic fascism' and 'inverted totalitarianism'? — John Doe

I guess, they're two sides of the same coin. One is a more active and dominant belief that hides under the guise of inverted totalitarianism. Hard to explain but I suppose you get the gist.

Some more:

Almost from the beginning of the Cold War the citizenry, supposedly the source of governmental power and authority as well as a participant, has been replaced by the "electorate," that is, by voters who acquire a political life at election time. During the intervals between elections, the political existence of the citizenry is relegated to a shadow-citizenship of virtual participation. Instead of participating in power, the virtual citizen is invited to have "opinion": measurable responses to questions predesigned to elicit them. — Sheldon Wolin, Democracy Incorporated [...] pg. 59

A great deal of the book is history, and reinterpreting it through a different lens. I find many of Wolin's comments as insightful and penetrating. Here's some random underlined text relevant to the topic that I found in my bookshelf:

The United States has become the showcase of how democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed. This has come about, not through a Leader's imposing his will or the state's forcibly eliminating opposition, but through certain developments, notably in the economy, that promoted integration, rationalization, concentrated wealth, and a faith that virtually any problem - from health care to political crisis, even faith itself - could be managed, that is, subjected to control, predictability, and cost-effectiveness in the delivery of the product. — Sheldon Wolin, Democracy Incorporated [...] pg. 47

I have actually read his "Democracy Incorporated". The thing I noticed that Wolin struggles with is as if trying to describe how the water feels like to a fish. It's so normal that we don't fidget or cry out against it. Living the American dream I suppose.

If you'd like to know more about my experiences just ask. Feel free to write about your own experiences with mood disorders, identity disorder, or just unusual experiences that you have had. — Josh Alfred

Do you display symptoms of paranoia? I'm apprehensive to straight out label you as a schizophrenic, as you may have a simply perceptual disorder.

I have struggled with being a schizophrenic for a good part of my life. It's fairly recently that my doctor has decided that it is rather a psychotic disorder, which in some ways sound even worse. I have trouble trying to put into words these experiences. It's like trying to ask a fish how the water feels like. Or put into different words, it's as if one were to completely and wholly dissociate from one's self to be able to objectively talk about the Mind, as you put it.

What do you think?

We do not have to argue about feelings. It's a real possibility that the Axis powers might have won WWII. The nuances in which our reality has been shaped by the acts of noble people is worth memorizing. Hence, what?

Had the Axis powers won the war, then what? Nothing can be said about the axis winning. It would seem an impossibility; but not so.

Dialectical, as in the Socratic dialogues, insofar as reasoned arguments tend towards a truth? Yes, as long as philosophy is discussed among rational folks. Philosophy isn’t dialectical at all, if a single rational folk is just trying to figure stuff out for himself. — Mww

I'm not quite sure. It seems to me that philosophy is a dialectic act. One opposes a different opinion through dialogue.

If indirect realism isn't at odds with idealism then there would have to be something other than minds or ideas that separates minds. This would be the medium through which minds communicate - matter. — Harry Hindu

Matter, essentially, but, what else can be said?

Now, time to watch the series?

Do you think philosophy progresses in a dialectical manner? I don't know what to say about philosophers who "really" get the message or anything like that. I suppose everyone can get the message.

I hear you. I've been through that phase is life. But, eventually, some theme in education is arrived at. One tends to learn from the experience, and eventually find some profession they might be good at. I hope you the best in your search for what might best suit you. It isn't told enough to students and not enough effort is put in to guide students at what they might be good at in the future.

If Bitter Crank's first proposition was done properly everyone would find their way through life much easier. — Sir2u

Then what do you think is the best way to address this? It is the most important point; but, I'm at a loss as to how to implement or even devise it.

If the second was done then most of the universities would have to close down. Have you checked out how many people never practice their profession? — Sir2u

What do you mean? I don't understand what you mean by most universities would close down?

You mean idealism is not necessarily at odds with indirect realism? Maybe Kant's Transcendental idealism could be reconciled with IR, I suppose. There certainly are 'realist' interpreters among the Kant scholars. — Janus

Yes, I think indirect realism doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with transcendental idealism. How, I'm not quite sure.

Awesome post Mww. I don't know what to say. When does one ever reach an understanding of any particular philosopher seems to be the question here? Wick's book isn't that bad, I agree that I am too lazy to read the entirety of WWAR vol. I&II&III. I suppose interpretations of works will always have this issue that you outlined; but, still think that it's a helpful tool to utilize anyway to hear the words of philosophers in different voices.

Is your question different from that dispute? — Valentinus

I'm not sure. I think that my assertion isn't really that different from claiming that God is not something that can be talked about. "It" (God) has no subject because he transcends the subject-object distinction. Therefore, some form of quietism is apt when wanting to "talk" about God. Of course, there's a paradox here because I am talking about God; but, it can be interpreted as babble, along with what anyone else would want to say something about God.

What does anyone else think about how education should look like or care to criticize my own conception of how it should look like?

I don't think indirect realism is equivalent to idealism, because idealism, in one way or another, claims that everything is fundamentally mind, whereas indirect realism does not necessarily make any claim about the ultimate constitution of things, but does assert that there is a mind-independent reality, that is reflected in our mind-dependent perceptions. — Janus

I agree; but, think that it is not irreconcilable to assert that indirect realism is at odds with idealism.

Thanks for the paper. I think Wick's account is still valid, just misconstrued. His point seems to be that the subject-object distinction is inescapable, and from memory, the only way out of it is through the intellect or aesthetic appreciation of music or art. I'm still fairly early on in the book, so I still have gaps to fill in here and there.

A subject can't exist without an object to delineate the two. But, if God is everything, then the issue is inchoate?

Is this just a misconstrued thread where language went on holiday? Maybe God has subjecthood?

Nice analysis. Yet, most religions, perhaps excluding Judaism, talk about God as a person or as if "It" was a subject residing in the world instead of treating "It" as everything that is the case. Why is that?

Talk about a gross overgeneralization! Or not...

Now, with the theoretical points I mentioned, outlined. I think, that the most promising recent development in education is the emergence of MOOC or online classes. This significantly lowers costs, which are already negligible in the grand scheme of things; but, nevertheless a sore thumb in implementing a trial and error approach to having a pass or no pass system of classes. The MOOC system lowers the burden of having to pay for housing, food, and teacher costs. In general, it's more accommodating to the student and teacher and whatever lifestyle they lead. There are drawbacks to online education; but, I don't want to focus on them at this moment. They are comparable to community colleges in how they conduct their curriculum. Indeed, there is also the point that more people can access higher education through online means.

So, I think MOOC is a positive thing for the idea of implementing this trial and error approach to education that I outlined in the OP.

Any criticisms or feedback appreciated.

It might help to define your terms. What is it exactly that you're asking? — S

@Banno what do you think?

So, this would apply to everything, then. — Janus

The interesting fact that arises from this is that you can go many ways with this line of thought. It could imply monism or panpsychism or transcendental idealism or some other stuff.

You seem to be saying that the existence of anything and everything depends upon our experience of it. — Janus

Well, yea. We don't really know what are qualia, and they seemingly exist given the beetle in a box thought experiment. Language constraints our understanding of reality here because referentially, we seem to always need to denote something when talking about "stuff". But, what does me posting "here" denote? The server in which this forum is made apparent, the conglomerate of individuals posting on this forum?

If it is right, then you are some kind of idealist or anti-realist. — Janus

I think, @Harry Hindu indicated that indirect realism might be more appropriate here. What do you think? :)

It seems to me that minds are objects themselves. You are your mind that exists relative to me. You are nothing more than another object that I can interact with both physically and mentally. — Harry Hindu

Under Schopenhauer's understanding, mind as primary subjects, that can perceive themselves as only subjects. This is where the loop between subjectivity and objectivity arises. I'm still reading along here and can say that the chief element that Schopenhauer mentions is the unclearness of the will of the Will. In some sense, it is a noumena or thing in itself. I'll come back later as I progress through the book.

Somewhat tangent quotes from Wikipedia's quote page on Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

Ich sage euch: man muß noch Chaos in sich haben, um einen tanzenden Stern gebären zu können.
I tell you: one must still have chaos within oneself, to give birth to a dancing star.
Prologue 5.
Kein Hirt und Eine Heerde! Jeder will das Gleiche, Jeder ist gleich: wer anders fühlt, geht freiwillig in's Irrenhaus.
No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wants the same, everyone is the same: whoever feels different goes wilingly into the madhouse.

Can you share any of his contribution related to this topic? — FranckFriends

I'm no expert on Nietzsche; but, he talks about what you mention in your OP about people being submissive to traditions and customs or more specifically a form of dogmatism in behavior. Zarathustra would be the antithesis of the kind of people you described.

Have philosophers of the past and present something to say about it? — FranckFriends

Nietzsche is the first guy that comes to my mind.


I feel as though you might be right, but how do you account for creativity?

Sorry, I messed up the ordering of the images. Might have caused confusion.

I corrected it now.

But other observers exist independent of your experience of them. Where do they exist relative to your mind? If they are seperate minds then that implies some kind of medium where minds exist which would be the shared world. What seperates minds from each other? — Harry Hindu

Yes, I think solipsism deserves a mention here. Each mind exists in its own subjective-objective nature. But, the world as we know it is composed of individuals. Therefore, we are aware that other minds exist; but, are limited in scope to only own subjective-objective existence. Have a look at the context Schopenhauer is talking about this in the previous reply to Tim Wood.