Yeah, but in all this, there's some rational guidance being in play. Even free association employs some rational guidance from the part of the therapist.

How would you characterize the mind of a chronic depressive? I think they are able to feel emotions such as joy, from time to time, although much more rarely than someone who isn't depressed. My issue is with trying to describe states of mind through emotion, apart from reason.

We know that rationally based talk therapy, CBT, and other therapies are effective at alleviating depression to some degree. So, reason is playing some role in all this and not a dysphoria of mood only.

In my opinion it seems like to even ask "is the glass half full or half empty" already basically confirms a pessimistic evaluation of the world. You'd think, that if the world really was good, it would be immediately obvious that it was. — darthbarracuda

Going back to realism, I think that's the only answer to the predicament posed by asking whether the glass is half empty or half full. At least that's the logical conclusion to stop oscillating between positivity or negativity over the issue.

Gramsci once called for an optimism of the will and a pessimism of the intellect: this has always been, I think, a lovely formula to live by. — StreetlightX

Indeed lovely.

Most people are devoid of philosophy. And this is troubling. — Blue Lux

What's so great about philosophy?

What do you mean by the behavior and thoughts of other people?

Just top 3 for me:

1) The veil of ignorance, by John Rawls

2) The seventh proposition of the Tractatus, by Ludwig Wittgenstein

3) The problem of evil, various.

I dont think im strong enough to be compassionate to be honest. — Aleksander Kvam

Why not? What does strength have to do with being compassionate?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-clarity/201703/compassion-is-better-empathy

Interesting stuff.

https://chopra.com/articles/whats-the-difference-between-empathy-sympathy-and-compassion

To be honest, im not used to "compassion" and that is my short coming and probally the reason im not empathic enough to help. — Aleksander Kvam

Another important concept, 'compassion'. Thanks.

To me its a little bit about not wanting to carry the weight of the world on my shoulders. I have my one to carry. — Aleksander Kvam

Undeniably true. It's just a matter of preference then, I suppose. How much are you willing to carry and do, is a personal choice. But, since it's moral, then why not? I don't claim to be an adherent to carrying the world on my shoulders, just that if I could then why not? Is it irrational to do so? Maybe that's the issue?

Maybe through empathy? I think a human-connection and interaction must be established before there is an interest for someone to help "complete strangers". The way I see it anyway... — Aleksander Kvam

Yes, certainly empathy is needed. I wonder how much that can be worked on, given that it's an emotion. Is there anything that can be done rationally, that would increase one's sphere of interest?

So, nobody really answered, how does one enlarge one's sphere of interest?

Is that possible?

That's one of my all time fav songs of BOC, The Campfire Headphase, whoo...

Indeed. You should start one if you want.

I don't know what the jargon for this song is called but it's like a breath of fresh air every time I listen to it:



Yeah, it's just synthwave. Haha.

But I can't help but think that this style of music is just a charicature; an attempt to capture something that never actually existed in the 80's. — Noble Dust

Yeah, it's called vaporwave for a reason (in this case synthwave I think or maybe even dreamwave). You hit the nail on the head though.

Thanks! Isn't she great? — Noble Dust

Superb, I would say.

Get's awesomely close to spiritual singing in some Arabic fashion at the halfway point.

Sounds good to me. :_)

Good point. You needed a Sanders and we needed a Corbyn. Still do. — Sapientia

Good luck with that.

That's nothing compared to the damage Trump has done. Count your blessings over there in the UK. USA, don't care. The welfare state for the rich is too damn important to change.

And just where did I say that I was in disagreement with enlarging ones sphere of interest? — Sir2u

Oh, sorry that I misinterpreted you here.

Are the other peoples lives in need of bettering because they don't want to work, or because they have so many kids that they have to stay home and look after them.
Would it be moral to give money to both? — Sir2u

Isn't that irrelevant? I don't know of any welfare kings or queens. Besides, if one were to address the issue of people scrounging off of welfare, then that's a small minority, I think.

Is it morally correct to take more money of the people that work to give to the ones that don't? — Sir2u

Given a utilitarian rationale, yes. If the money is spent on bettering the lives of other people, instead of starting wars or such.

I have done that to, but it dosent give me any satasfaxion.... — Aleksander Kvam

Well, the profoundness of the feeling, originated from seeing someone else be happy from my own deed. What do you think about seeing people as happy from something you did?

All too often, we think that homeless people are just scrounging for another fix or alcohol; but, that's not entirely true. The deeper issue is mental health, and no amount of goodwill or deed from an individual can fix that. Hence, socialism?

Maybe. But that seems too simplistic. You could write a book on this topic. To get people to enlarge their spheres of interest, you'd have to persuade them to do so in some way, and that's where political parties, the media, literature on the subject, discussion forums such this, and people you associate with, come in to the equation. — Sapientia

Well, you gotta start somewhere. And, I think that enlarging one's sphere of interest is a good thing. Seemingly people do agree with this from what posts I gather, perhaps exempt Sir2u.

when you give money. you dont see the effect it does when it has arrived. so your not investing in anything(and im not talking about money). you literarly woundent know if it "got lost" on the way, or if in the end it was all for nothing. one theory I guess, true or not, who knows.. — Aleksander Kvam

I once gave out some cigarettes to homeless people. Seeing the happiness on their faces, really struck me as a profound feeling of happiness on my own deed. Even if it was just cigarettes.

Hang on a minute while I get my crystal ball. Sorry, not even that helps. No idea then. :chin: — Sir2u

I think it's socialism? No? At the very highest of peaks, it's communism, no?

On an individual level? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Like gloaming said, we naturally have closer relationships with those whom we know best, interact with most often, and most intimately. We trust them more than others, care for them more than others, are more connected. Although, again, I'm sure you already know this. As an individual, I am no different than most others in this respect. I would give my own mother preferential treatment over a stranger on that basis. — Sapientia

So, what can be done to enlarge one's sphere of interest then? Seemingly, if more people on an individual level cared about others then the problem would eventually get solves, no?

So, I'm wondering if all this can be said to be an argument for more socialism or social democracy?

I don't like seeing homeless people, and if more welfare would change that for the better, then by all means.

Handouts from the government do not solve the problems.
— Sir2u
Sometimes they help, if structured right. I'm an example. — Relativist

Same here. Although, I'm not furthering my life anymore. Kinda gave up on that.

Making our personal sphere of interaction and interest would , as some pointed out, do little or no good. The fact is that there should be no asking for money. A functioning society would take care of its own as a society not as individuals. — Sir2u

Agreed. What kind of society would that look like, politically?

it might just be the attention I feel im making. unwanted attention I must add. — Aleksander Kvam

Any and all attention is good, @Aleksander Kvam, especially for the poor and needy.

Yes, because Universal Basic Income is... universal -- for everybody. No group is being favored. Besides the UBI isn't a benefit program for unfortunates. It's a macro-economic plan to deal with the consequences of structural economic change. — Bitter Crank

I think UBI, is the ultimate is increasing our so-called 'sphere of interest' in a capitalist based economy. The very ultimate being communism, I think. I could be wrong.

So if you knew then you would give? — Sir2u

Yes.

is it just me who thinks its kind of akward giving them money. you know that who think with eye-contact, taking out your wallet, and so on. why is that?! :roll: — Aleksander Kvam

They aren't all thieves. Just saying.

OK, to what extent? Who should be making the decision or how should it be made? Is there a standard formula for it? — Sir2u

Speaking politically then isn't the rational solution, mores socialism?

But it is an interesting question. — Sir2u

What's interesting about it? We just don't know where the money will go, so we don't give. If we had assurance, that it would be spent on necessities or the betterment of their situation, then wouldn't you be more inclined to give them money then?

the reason I dont give, isnt because im cheap or dislike them or something like that. its because I dont think it will help much. — Aleksander Kvam

Well, it might help them emotionally. I'm not sure if in the long run, it would help, as you describe.

As individuals, do we really have a moral obligation towards the rest of humanity? — Sir2u

Surely, we do. To some extent. Not saying we should just abandon self-interest, just that would be the ethical thing to do.