Can you give an example of what you mean? I'm unsure I understand the issue. — aporiap

Well, suppose that we're talking about some doctrinal truth, and we both have perfect knowledge of it. We're we to discuss it we could go on for ages without ever making an error in consistency.

How do we know that what we're talking about is true and accurate if no inconsistency ever arose?

But, can't this be said of everything epistemological? When can there be certainty when we don't know when no further contradictory statements can arise? It's almost as if wanting to have your cake and eat it too...

Well yes, I think so. But what do you call it when someone commits an error in interpreting it as consistent but behaves inconsistently with regards to it? Is that some error or fallacy?

Why should texts obey some principle of non-contradiction? — mcdoodle

To ensure consistency and the least amount of misunderstanding? Sure, such texts are boring since there's nothing to criticise, but, at least they are logically sound.

This would be the dream of an authoritarian, surely? — mcdoodle

You can call it mathematics, or the laws of nature if there's such a negative connotation with associating humans with it.

Non-contradiction happens in logic, perhaps, but as soon as we use natural language it creeps in. And creeps, and creeps. — mcdoodle

Well, yes, formal languages are devoid of this feature. So, then why are non-formal languages so rife with the possibility for inconsistency?

Hello again, btw, Posty. Hope you're well. — mcdoodle

Nice to see you mcdoodle. It's a shame the Wittgenstein reading group thread died; but, oh well.

I'm not sure it's indicative of understanding; maybe you can have more than one logically valid interpretations of a text but they'd all be equally plausible as the meaning. You can only have understanding if you have direct access to the author's intended meaning. — aporiap

Well, yes. The absence of non-sequiturs implies that one understands something. Therefore, how do you lessen the chance of a non-sequitur from arising at all? Through consistency? But, how do you arrive at consistency without contradictions?

I guess, if anyone is interested, then the point, I think, is how to ensure that the rules of the language game are being followed correctly? It only seems that one is following the rules correctly as long as no contradictions arise.

I don't understand the Bible as a consistent body of work that preaches one thing rather than another. — mcdoodle

Then, shouldn't every text be made so that there's the least amount of possibility of contradiction in it, therefore someone may feel as though they understand it appropriately? But, how do you ensure this important feature of any text???

Otherwise I think it's fine to use whatever background context is there to limit possible interpretations and then choose the one involving the least contradiction. — aporiap

So, the absence of contradiction is indicative of understanding a text, correct?

To behave contrary to some doctrinal truth implies that there is 'Truth' in the matter or text. Is this a type of fallacy?

Not necessarily, the person may just be struggling to overcome contrary tendencies in their psyche. "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak," and all that. — gurugeorge

Yes; but, what about extending this argument to non-religious texts? Then can one ever be said to know something unless he or she isn't the author of it? It's as if a body of knowledge dies when the author does too. It's as if to present something contrary to what someone has spoken of, that misunderstanding arises. So, how do you prevent misunderstanding, then?

Any proper interpretation? — Πετροκότσυφας

Yeah.

Are there more than one proper interpretations? — Πετροκότσυφας

Possibly.

And to point out that there's always a chance of confusion regarding interpretation is the rejection of these proper interpretations? — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes.

Namely, fallibility? — Πετροκότσυφας

It's not so much as fallibility, as the rejection of any proper interpretation of things. I don't feel like it's fallibility though if that makes sense?

And why isn't this modern science incarnate (aka the enemy of "postmodernism")? Namely, fallibility? — Πετροκότσυφας

Now, that you call it modern science, then I can't help but agree. Case closed?

Well yes, certainly a line was crossed in this case. It just seems to me that you have a body of work, such as the Bible, with the potential to create inconsistency and misgivings about interpreting it that one never knows when they have the right understanding of it without divine intervention. So, how do you know when you've got it right, so to speak.

With the behaviors of the clergy outlined, it's simply indefensible what they did.

I want to say it's willful ignorance, but that's not right either...

What do you call it when someone behaves contrary to what the Bible preaches and yet the person acts in the name of religiosity? I don't think hypocrisy nails the issue on the head adequately enough... The very fact that one would behave contrary to what something teaches indicates some lack in understanding of some facet or feature of an ideology or doctrinal truth. What is meant by "contrary" and "understanding" in this context?

"We believe that the real number - of children whose records were lost or who were afraid ever to come forward - is in the thousands."

:rage:

The Democrats are not going to win by pointing out trump is a piece of shit. That was a given in the previous election and they lost. — Benkei

If only, but, now the point is actually apparent and real.

Yeah, the goose is cooked. That's all folks.

Midterms on the way and I can't imagine Trump passing anything or getting a break after a sweep by Dems.

Glad you are OK, and able to share the story. I've heard that it's the cowards way out; but, it definitely takes some balls to commit suicide.

I wonder how much of our world views are shaped by emotions. There is a term for this. It's called emotional reasoning; but, seems to fade away when the level of abstraction increases in some dispute.

It's strange to think that your perception can change while your world views remain the same. Meaning, you can still believe we're all screwed by climate change, and still have an optimistic outlook on some other issues? An overly compartmentalized mind?

As far as I'm aware, depression is reflexively not an itch. We shirk away from a problem we face due to depression and tend to bury the issue under a pile of rationalizations.

:lol:

Returning to the OP. Why is depression so deeply intertwined with pessimism? What's the deal with the causal relationship between the two?

Many people with depression actually exhibit quite a bit of will power. They do not feel like it, but they make themselves get out of bed, take care of the children, do their work, take the dog for a walk (the dog isn't depressed, after all and insists on it), and so forth. — Bitter Crank

Yes, they are compelled to do these things, otherwise, the anxiety, which is the identical twin of depression, tends to kick in. But, I would surmise that depression is robbing one's self of their willpower. As to why is a general mystery still...

I could provide a personal example, but I am very reluctant to post my own experiences. — Blue Lux

Go ahead. Nobody's judging.

"Wallowing -- it's what I do." That was in his pig avatar phase. Perhaps he has relinquished the claim, but probably not. — Bitter Crank

I haven't wallowed all that much today. Perhaps, a little; but, significantly less today. :blush:

wallowing (sorry Posty) in the same shithole month after month is certainly not going to result in progress. — Bitter Crank

All good. I think the Prozac is kicking in so, no harm was done... :blush:

It is a spiral out of control for the personality, for the personality which would be a lack of totality in relation to the negative emotions that have more power and more of a control on the personality. Nietzsche would say to empower the personality by all means... Which would be the integration of emotions into the totality of the personality, empowering not emotions themselves but that which they become a part of constituting, namely the personality. — Blue Lux

And, how does one go about this? How do you integrate those emotions that are a drain on one's willpower?

I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Please elaborate on what you have in mind.

So, is it:

I have no willpower, therefore, I feel out of control? (The converse doesn't sound right.)

willpower and control seems to me to be the same in this scenario.... — Aleksander Kvam

Yes, there's certainly a causal relationship between the two. But, chicken or egg? When one has no willpower they feel out of control of their lives or some situation; but, not being out of control and having no willpower?

I could not summarize this along the lines of Nietzsche (as he is really hardcore), but the general statement would be it is not the inability to "lift (yourself) out of depression" but the inability to stop yourself sinking into it. The depression itself, the painful thought as uncontrolled will to effect, as exercise of power in the absence of power to effect the world. — Heiko

So, it's an endless spiral out of control? Perhaps, the issue, then-past willpower-is control?

What I am referring to is the fact that, subsequently, down the line after accepting an emotion, the emotion's power over the will becomes suppressed. — Blue Lux

What do you mean by this? Do you mean this in the manner that emotions that are suppressed are also affecting the will in a negative way?

The realization of a negative emotion is inconsequential. What is important is not letting it remain in its determining configuration, as it will determine the future and it will chain you to it, because it is outside of you, not integrated, not accepted. — Blue Lux

This is interesting. So, you're saying that a negative emotion is inconsequential insofar as it is not accepted? Therefore, the talk therapy of psychology is helpful, yes?

Accepting an emotion is not suppressing it actively. — Blue Lux

So, therefore you are talking about the unconscious process' of defence mechanisms or such?

But that is what would happen eventually, for the unsuppressed emotion is that which persists and characterizes the Will's inability to escape it. — Blue Lux

Unsuppressed or suppressed, not sure I'm understanding you here.

In case anyone is interested in the modern day conception of 'willpower':

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/willpower.aspx

Pretty good read. Seems intrinsically linked with motivation; but, motivation is more internal than willpower, which is more malleable and external facet of human nature.

Depression is usually constitutive of an inability to overcome certain aspects about one's existence that have associated with them negative emotions or pain. — Blue Lux

So, again an issue of motivation, and the power of the will. Is that correct?

Depression is often because one has a reason to be depressed: they will the depression. — Blue Lux

Huh? How can one will one's self into depression? That would be extremely irrational, no? Unless this is an unconscious process, yes?

hey will the depression because they do not want to let go and accept the indefinability of these negative emotions and experiences. People do not want to let go of how they feel because that would be departing from oneself... — Blue Lux

I thought depression was remedied by realizing those feelings, and not suppressing them? Or are you talking about suppressing them and not realizing them? Perhaps, I got the reasoning wrong?

Nietzsche had some interesting theories about this. Like some kind of morbid deformity. For example the will to feel bad when listening to sad music. — Heiko

Yes, if you care to expand please do. I'm quite interested in his views on the will and mental ailments like depression. I'm not sure if he explicitly talked about depression though.

Yeah, and still there's a need for reason to guide someone out of their lows? If I accept everything then I haven't accepted much.

And how does that change anything wrt. to depression?

"In order to change, one must accept." Jung — Blue Lux

Accept what?