Just to give some idea of what an idealized version of this thread ought to look like, here's a syllabus from the University of Chicago. Intense!

Other books are available as well, such as Anscombe's Introduction to the Tractatus, Essays on the History & Interpretation of the Tractatus, and Routledge's version of the Tractatus. — John Doe

If you can could you check if those links are available still? I seem to get a 500 error when trying to view them. Seems to be an issue with the server. I will check back latter and see if I can search those books through the website. Thanks.

I'm hoping on starting this soon, while there's some interest.

NVM: A google search gives me the results I was looking for:

http://traumawien.at/stuff/theory/g-e-m-anscombe-an-introduction-to-wittgensteins-tractatus.pdf
and
https://www.scribd.com/document/28696305/An-Introduction-to-Wittgenstein-s-Tractatus
or
http://traumawien.at/stuff/theory/g-e-m-anscombe-an-introduction-to-wittgensteins-tractatus.pdf

So the world is on one end of the relationship bridge; what is on the other end, if not some self? How did the self manage to get to a point where it doesn't have a relationship with the world any more? — Bitter Crank

Beats me. I'm just pointing out that psychology has been too ego-centric for a good while now, and that leads to the risk of developing values or beliefs that are detrimental to our shared world.

There is no escaping the world, or reality; it's a lion prowling in the dark savanna, silently slipping through the shadows, about to ambush us, once again. One of these nights will be the last time, and then the ambiguous self will vanish. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, there's no eliminating the fear of death and threats, unless one chooses to mindlessly distract themselves into some oblivion.

You want a relationship with reality? Let me tell you: reality is out to kill you and it will eventually succeed--if not this time, then the next time. — Bitter Crank

Oh, come now. It isn't that bad is it? Sure, we don't face lions or hyenas anymore as our main source of desperation. Which, has been a contributing environmental force to group and social cohesion. So, why is group cohesion disintegrating in the West, nowadays?

The critical step in therapy is always accepting reality. — Bitter Crank

Well, yes. Though, I don't think it can be found by looking deeper within the soup of the unconscious.

We don't have to like it, we can certainly commit ourselves to changing it, but we can not ignore it. So, our reality therapy patient must begin by accepting whatever he or she is. IF what one is is very bad (like, really very badly screwed up) then that's just going to be a tough piece to look at. But then there's acceptance, and absolution. Easy? Nope. Quick? Usually not. Difficult to make progress? Oh, yes -- very much so. But, you know, we keep working at it and at some point in the future we notice... "hey, I can see progress here!" And we keep on. — Bitter Crank

How is progress made by appealing to inner values such as selfishness and lust and wants and desires? Are you not a Buddhist?

That's the million dollar question nobody knows the answer to. — TheMadFool

I think the answer is pretty obvious, the golden mean, yes? Just one of those things that's harder to implement in reality, I suppose.

Ethics is much easier within the family and even friends. A smaller community makes for an ideal state to practice morality. — TheMadFool

This is a troubling predicament. Because it limits the sphere of interest to use the technical term, to those only closest to you. This in part leads to excluding the people out of your sphere of interest from shared goals and aspirations. It's an ethical problem as to how to encompass the sphere of interest for another beyond those closest to you.

In a way I think we need to, instead of trying to unite society and the individual, actually separate them from each other. — TheMadFool

What do you mean by that?

But to the degree these are models of how collaborative good can arise out of selfish actions, then they are hardly egocentric. — apokrisis

I'm not sure if you understand the Prisoners Dilemma. The point of it is the inverse of what you are saying. Namely that selfish actions are not Pareto optimal unless an external force/factor influences the decision making process, and the delineation of when a selfish action ought to be undertaken or not is epistemically futile, unless you were some computer or programmable entity.

They speak to the social science understanding that flourishing requires a self-organising and adaptive balance of competitive and co-operative actions. Both are right as both are needed. And that is what the psychological fixes would be targeting as the reality. — apokrisis

Well, given the advent of homo economicus, there seems to have been a profound perversion of human nature that has been taking place since the Industrial Revolution. I don't think this is a natural state of affairs and something sustainable, which has become apparent with existential issues now facing us such as nuclear war or climate change. To compound on the complexity, nobody really knows how the economy works exactly, it's being run by algorithms and soon, possibly, some form of AI. Just to go all sci-fi here, I don't think we really know what a future would look like with coexisting with an entity that is driven by a calculus of maximum efficiency and perfection in every regard.

So the commons are a good thing - so long at the personal vs group dynamic is balanced by "market forces". — apokrisis

We don't know those 'market forces', think the invisible hand.

Because we are changing everything so fast. Humans are socially constructed and humans are changing the society that constructs them. When else in history has there been such a need to consider the kinds of people we are making? — apokrisis

I feel as though our capacity to adapt to change (self induced change), is being tested to its limits, as we will see within the coming years ahead of us.

And it cuts both ways. The Millennials could be making the right world for them, so Baby Boomers and Gen Xers should be shoving over, letting the change happen quicker. — apokrisis

No, that's not true. The Millennials have inherited a no win situation. It has become a zero sum game of sorts, given the above existential threats that we now face.

You mean like Positive Psychology? Which is a paradigm shift I've been tracking for some time. Where I live, it's been part of the damn national educational curriculum for a decade now. You can't get much more officially mainstream than that. — apokrisis

I don't believe in the self inflating positive psychology movement. It's based on the false premise that self-esteem in necessary to give rise to positive affective emotions. Think of a hamster stuck in a wheel.

And among Millennials generally, it is one of their supposed hallmarks - a pro-social individualism. It expresses itself in social enterprise, the sharing economy, and other economic philosophies meant to roll back the excesses of funny money capitalism. — apokrisis

I have nothing against bona fide capitalism. The "capitalism" we see nowadays been perverted to protect the interests of the few and not many.

Social constructionism does not deny individuality. — apokrisis

No, the point is that it implies the need for collectivism, and not individualism, which we see widespread in the cult of the individual nowadays.

You want people who have some assertiveness, self-esteem and motivation. Society needs creative energy as well as its generalised habits of constraint and collaboration. — apokrisis

Self-esteem is not a need, more like a want that we've been told is a need.

So yes, there is definitely another way to frame the issues. But one that incorporates the natural thing of self-interested competition as part of the productive mix. — apokrisis

I beg to differ.

Enjoy.



Killer beat also:

https://evexi.bandcamp.com/track/parallel

Yes, thank you Sam. I have realized that I now have to study logic to even better understand the Tractatus.

Anyway, I'm interested in other input than my own on this topic. So, please don't feel obliged to engage me in this topic, as that's not the point here.

I think for a correct approach to this we need to look into both aspects of what makes us - a balance between the self and social existence. — TheMadFool

Yes, so how do we arrive at that balance or golden mean?

To focus on one at the cost of the other would be missing something important in my view. — TheMadFool

How do you delineate or satisfy the two?

The trend in our world (I may be wrong) is that now we're in a position to allow individuals to achieve a greater degree of freedom from the limitations of social existence. It is possible, in the modern world, to isolate yourself from society - to not care about friendship, love, family, etc. - and yet derive all the benefits of a social existence like safety and security. — TheMadFool

I'm afraid that's a very impoverished way of living.

Do you see where this is going? — TheMadFool

Not sure.

I don't really see that at all. — apokrisis

Well, just take the Prisoners dilemma for example or the tragedy of the commons, or the fact that economics treats what is rational with self interest. All of these situations arise because we place a higher value of our own welfare than that of others in much of Westernized society.

But regular psychology has been focused on society's need to jam round pegs into square holes most of the time. — apokrisis

I don't want to turn this thread into a critique of modern society; but, it's almost inevitable that this thread will take that turn. Why is that?

But it is me pointing that out! — apokrisis

Yeah, so doesn't that prove the point that psychology is in need of a paradigm shift from the ego-centric model?

You say it is futile. But your responses are anecdotal rather than evidential. And one of the skills that positive psychology would aim to teach here is to be able to break out of that kind of self-fulfilling circle where you assume stuff - like that typical psychology is highly egocentric - and then brush off all suggestions to the contrary ... in egocentric fashion. — apokrisis

I'm not saying all of psychology is egocentric; and I sure hope it isn't, but there's really no way to frame the issue otherwise, or is there?

And, if all of this reeks of a modern day version of Stoicism, then I can't argue with that.

This just seems an example of what many have realised - we are socially constructed beings. — apokrisis

Yes; but, the context is important here. Meaning, that for much of the past history of psychology, the importance of the self has been elevated over the concerns of society, giving rise to what I call delusional psychology. Reality therapy, supersedes that goal, along with Glasser's choice theory, that instead of what we see happening all around of as the desire originating from the 'self' (whatever that may be), instead a form of pragmatism and mutual understanding is the goal, and harmony.

Of course, that leads to the political/economic question of whether that society is the right kind of world in the first place. A poor personal fit could reflect on the society itself. And it might be the good copers who suffer a kind of pathology in becoming so well adapted to the demands of their social environment. — apokrisis

Yes, the concept of "coping" itself is therefore flawed given that there's nothing that needs to be coped with in some sense because my values don't mesh with yours. There's also a deep and insidious ad hominen hidden in what you call "A poor personal fit" here, think the label "mental disorder".

Then, more optimistically, there is also the Positive Psychology movement that says "Reality Therapy" should be taught to everyone. It is not just there to fix the ill. It is the learnable basics of being mentally healthy. — apokrisis

Well, yes. Although, again this isn't a happy 'self-esteem' based inflating theory. The point is that one jumped over that hurdle and overcomes the desire to gratify all of of their wants.

Learning about how social construction works - how we get programmed for life by our early social influences - is also how we can transcend that early programming to make what might be more adaptive choices in terms of our attitudes and beliefs. — apokrisis

That's a futile task. I'm reminded of the man who spent a week to detail one day of his life, who was never able to complete his autobiography in time.

I do have to say @schopenhauer1 that your persistence and persuasiveness of your threads guided by Schopenhauers narcissistic philosophy are grounds for turning me into a misanthrope. I mean that honestly, haha. I already live like a hermit but now I want to just be left alone from everyone and everything. I guess my solipsism is buckling or caving in.

Thanks for sharing your sane and awesome thoughts on the matter, Erik. I would be highly interested in a thread about your thoughts and experiences with the education system in the US, if you ever care to share your thoughts about that. I figure we have a decent amount of teachers and educated people on this forum to be able to entertain a quality discussion on that topic.

Just re-read the thread, and I feel that we need to make a blanket ban on any topics trying to draw any racially or gender based correlations between IQ and gender or race. Phew!

This whole thread is a joke. Because to be able to profile leaders, you have to have a certain set of criteria to compare them to (some idealized norm), which contradicts my main point of the thread:

Therefore, that points at a certain psychological profile (educational background) that one ought not have to assume positions of power and influence. (notice the 'not' now being crossed out and now affirming an ideologically driven norm).

I digress.

That's true about Sanders, at least to a certain extent, but in my experience socialists are often just as beholden to the values/ideals driving capitalism as their economic conservative opponents. — Erik

OK, so the issue is in regards to getting the right and accurate picture of the working of the economy then, as I understand it, which I bring up in my post towards Banno.

They focus their attention on admirable things, like a more just distribution of goods and opportunities, but they don't always, or even typically, tie that in with the type of ontological critique I'm thinking about. — Erik

Well, most people don't even know what the word "ontological" even means. So, we kind of have to dumb down the talk somewhat.

The difference, as I see it, would be like that between, say, someone who wants to socialize advanced education as a means of leveling the playing field for all people in their quest for financial security and material comfort - regardless of race or sex or current socioeconomic class - and another who rejects the very notion that acquiring knowledge and skills to make money is, or should be, the sole (or even the primary) purpose of education; between a person who says that universal healthcare is desirable because it serves the needs of the nation's economy, and another who rejects the idea that all human ends - such as taking care of the sick and poor - should be subordinated to the demands of the economy; between the outlook of a Cornel West and a Ta-Nahisi Coates; etc. — Erik

This I get and have a pretty good grasp of. Yet, most people don't understand that it would be a non-net-deadweight loss to have subsidized healthcare than the current alternative. It's a type of broken window fallacy.

This position doesn't amount to a rejection of economic activity, but rather a massive reprioritizing of the ends for which the economy and the political system should serve. I know it sounds "hippie-ish", but that hypothetical shift in priorities, in the way we relate to our world, would lead to situation in which Donald Trump would no longer be considered a success but rather an embarrassment. So ultimately it's not Donald Trump who's the main problem, it's the "world" which significantly predated and gave rise to him. Those horizons shift historically and there's no reason to think they won't again at some point in the future. — Erik

Trying to be pragmatic, here; but, this is heavily idealistic and, well, to be blunt will likely never come to pass. So, the alternative is just to appeal to voters interests as usual, which lands us back at the same starting point.

I know the New Left of the 1960's - obviously not so new anymore - latched onto the importance of supplementing economic critiques of capitalism with criticisms of the larger cultural framework in which commercialism and consumerism and militarism hold sway; but today's Left seems to have largely fallen away from that stance in favor of one which adopts the discourse of an economic interpretation of life (for lack of a better description). Shifting money away from militaristic endeavors and towards education and other such things are positive first steps, of course, but I don't think they go far enough if they don't also include a much more significant desire to transform our collective way of being - and importantly beyond that which is envisioned by the current political Left and Right. — Erik

Yes, so it essentially comes down to education and what values we instill in new generations, correct? Talk about being idealistic, on my part.

This might explain...

https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/12/12/2016/socialism-rich-capitalism-poor-interview-noam-chomsky — Banno

Ok, read it and re-read it; but, the question remains as to how to discern the working of the real economy* (not that run by the top one tenth of one percent more or less) from that of the false illusion being propagated in the media and elsewhere that times are great because the economy is booming.

If such a picture can be presented to the general public in some coherent and plain and simple manner, then the pendulum might swing to the left again.

*When I say, "real economy" I mean that which is not presented by the very economists running it. Is that possible?

So, just to sound trite, intellectualism has always been about questioning authority. And, if we have too many people questioning authority on matters, then nothing would get done (or not).

So, you have a situation where intellectuals are dismissed on the basis of being against progress and growth, because they themselves cannot agree on what path is best to achieve it (or not again).

So, therefore, intellectualism is dismissed on grounds of being anti-(growth and progress).

Did I get it right?

So, in other words, the interests of the intellectuals will never align with our own (because they don't value what we do) so we must bash them into oblivion.

That would be something worthy of a thesis paper on the current socio-economic landscape of political science in the US. I'm afraid I'll have to return to your question in a good while, while I review the linked thread above.

Not to leave you hanging though, my experience at college has been somewhat lackluster in some regards. Critical thinking, or fighting against bias and ignorance, and apparent cult of individualism have been or are guiding values which have been either lackluster and/or rampant. It's fundamentally a problem about the education system itself, which I don't have enough knowledge to even comment on the issue.

I noticed that you posted in that linked thread, have your opinions and beliefs changed on the matter?

It's been covered here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2955/anti-intellectualism-in-america/p1

Anyhow it's the culture that needs to be changed IMO. As far as I can see, there haven't been too many candidates on either side who've challenged the guiding assumptions at work in our society. — Erik

Sanders does come to mind, though. Talk about socialism is no longer a taboo in America, I'm speaking about the newer generations arriving on the scene.

@andrewk

There's something I find very intriguing about what Professor Chomsky had to say in that video that I would like to ask other members about.

He claims that the stock market does not represent the workings or true nature of the economy but of the elite and super rich.

Is that true? (This is coming from someone who studied economics at college for a brief while). Perhaps @andrewk would be able to elucidate such an important insight.

Really good Westernized and stylized derivative of the Russian masterpiece called Solaris.

I think this is due to the apparently anti-intellectual sentiment widespread in America.

Since we fleshed out all the nuances of your draft, why not start a topic then? Shall we?

Not just silence; one would shit one's pants and starve to death. — unenlightened

Those are automatic/involuntary responses, they don't factor into the discussion, I think.

So, you're talking about ideologies then? What if someone disregards all of them? Quietude and stillness ensues? Is that the point?

Great idea! Kind of a thread nursery or nest until they are ready to fly off on their own. Like a good little crow, owl, or piglet. — 0 thru 9

Uhh, yea I guess. Haha.

You present a deep issue here. There seems to be a conundrum of sorts, which I surmise the general philosophical idea is whether psychology and feelings can be formalized in general into a coherent manner or what frame of reference ought we assume when talking about psychological matters as if the deep psychological claims made by a person are truth apt? Is that correct, according to the Humean quote?

Many people tend to brush aside these issues, due to the above quasi private content of the mind or 'psychology'. It is in some sense an insurmountable obstacle that there never can be any authority in matters pertaining the psyche, unless we're talking about "God" here.

Buxte does have his moments. :cool:

Gonna watch it now, since you mentioned it and it's quite interesting. Thanks https://yts.me/index8

Before I commit to purchasing a copy of the book mentioned by @John Doe, seen here. It's 35 USD and I will make the companion available for free in ebook format to other members in a private PM. I'm not so worried that someone will come after me over making the ebook available on philosophy to other members.

Although, I do like the juicy technical analysis offered by any other author if anyone has someone of that sort in mind.

Thanks.

I'm thinking something along the lines of Max Black or such.

ALL personalities (everybody) will display undesirable traits at times. — Bitter Crank

Psychopathy isn't a trait that is expressed sometimes. It's always apparent in all decisions of life.

Trump gets a F60.2 and F03 from most psychiatrists. Is that unfortunate? Yes, so what can we do about it then? I hope not rationalize everything.

I agree; people who are very psychopathic do not behave normally; they do not display loyalty, stability in projects, long term residence, etc. There psychopathic behaviors make them very poor candidates for public office. — Bitter Crank

Well, people are really really complex. It's just that if you get a combination of a psychopathic and narcissistic individual, that you end up with really bad consequences. If there would be anything in my life that I would want to leave as a mark on human history, it would be to institute some kind of test to prevent people of such undesirable traits from ever taking office.

I said a little psychopathy might make someone a more effective executive. The problem comes when there is more than a little psychopathic distortion present, but not enough to be terribly noticeable. — Bitter Crank

Well, we can indulge in a version of the Sorites paradox; but, we can delineate that there's a line that can be drawn on the matter.

I have found that indulging in the idealization of suicide presents a person with a conundrum as to what to do next in life. I have had my bouts of thinking about it; but, have always come to my senses that I would create more unhappiness in the world than otherwise. Without condemning or judging, I feel that the recent case of Anthony Bourdain was a typical case of a hedonist reaching his peak and realizing that there is no more pleasure to be derived from life.

There's no correct answer here, and in many instances some people decide to live their lives with that idealized intent in the back of their minds. But, to do so seems to remove the 100% purposeful desire of any actualized activity in life. In other words, life seems to be a matter of getting by instead of realizing intents and desires about some matter or goal. And even if they do get realized, their appreciation is diminished by the lackluster-haphazard lifeless intent.

You either commit or not.

Look at F. D. Roosevelt. Being confined to a wheelchair was a tremendous political liability (in that time, in that place). — Bitter Crank

Just a fun fact that because we didn't have TV's back then his voice was heard through the radio instead. Just thought that was kind of a cool thing to consider.

Maybe the next logical step is determining whether there is any truth in the claims that such and such an actual leader is disabled by some quality. — Bitter Crank

This is red-herring. We both know, maybe (unfortunately) through personal experience, that some people are just plain wicked or 'evil'.

Most people have at least several minor flaws, and many people -- including famous successful ones -- have several major flaws -- and are none-the-less successful. Look at F. D. Roosevelt. Being confined to a wheelchair was a tremendous political liability (in that time, in that place). Roosevelt's methods of dealing with people could be quite opaque and manipulative. His marriage was not good. He broke a long-standing precedent in running for a third (never mind fourth) term. Was FDR altogether on the level?

John F. Kennedy also had some significant flaws in his health and character; Nixon too. Was Kennedy's many affairs while serving as president (2.7 years) unacceptable? What about his shaky physical health? Nixon? A lot of people loathed Richard M. Nixon for good reason before he became president. Tricky Dick had to assert that "I am not a crook!" Most presidents do not NEED to say such a thing.

Donald Trumps main liability seems to be that he had so little formal political experience before winning the election. But then, Eisenhower didn't have any political experience as such before he became president. — Bitter Crank

While, I would like to downplay my own concerns at sabotaging my own thread, I don't think there's a big chance of a 'true' psychopath making his or her way into the office. There's just too much exposure to hide such a fact/trait form plain view, I think. There's always that small chance though...

We would need to agree on what characteristics were really unacceptable. — Bitter Crank

I don't think there is a lack of evidence to dismiss this as a non-issue, speaking about human history. The advent of 'psychopathy' seems to be a recent one. I am not aware of analyzing the psychology of leaders during ancient Greece, until the birth of the field of psychology.

Megalomania is not desirable, but most leaders have at least a mild case, not matter what the field. Narcissism is undesirable, but again, most leaders have at least a modest degree of self-adoration (you just about have to have it). Insensitivity is undesirable, but a certain amount of insensitivity is a desirable feature when it comes to critical negotiations. Psychopathy is mot all or nothing, and many good executives have a modest dose of psychopathy -- it makes it possible for them to carry out unpopular policies with confidence (like laying off 5,000 surplus workers whose labor is no longer needed). — Bitter Crank

Yes, let me point out again, that I'm not ideologically advocating a certain type of personality, just a personality that does not display undesirable traits.

So, the reason for me positing this issue is because I see all around claims being made that X potential or actual leader has X disorder or condition. Thus, isn't the next logical step the above bar to set for potential leaders who display XYZ undesireable trait?

So, having thought some more and receiving some feedback, I would like to, though I don't know if this is possible, to generalize this question to any political leader, not specifically our/your/my current leader at hand.