"Can the fact that Joe believes it isn't raining outside, while it is actually raining outside be thought to be true?"

Part of my question has to do with the verification of facts? How do we know that something can be actually true, because what happens when facts contradict each other?

I think the 'third tower collapse conspiracy' has been thoroughly and irrefutably debunked. — Wayfarer

As in it never happened or as in office fires brought a steel framed building down?

(Friend of mine lived in Shanghai from 2000-2006, When he came back he was utterly convinced in the Twin Towers conspiracy. Had swallowed the whole story hook line and sinker. I wondered why he was so convinced, but I think it had something to do with having been living in China. It's in their interests to sow mistrust and doubt about the US government. China, Iran and Russia all have direct interests in weakening public perception of Western governance. There's your actual 'conspiracy'.) — Wayfarer

The thing is that many people simply don't believe that the official story presented by NIST and FEMA, which don't hold water when faced with reality. You can look up the third tower that fell on 9/11, World Trade Center 7, which most people don't even know about after having the images of the twin towers seared into their minds.

In one word, well actually two: language games. Same ancestry though!

One has to realize that the more money in fewer hands will cause the economy to collapse or at the very least to stagnate due to reduced demand.

A simple example is whether a 60 year old with 1 billion contribute more to growth an prosperity, regardless if you believe in trickle down, than say ten 30 year olds with 100 million?

This is beside the fact that, who the hell needs 1 billion? Let alone 100 million?

Surprisingly enough we used to do it in the States. There are plenty of videos of proof of this. Make America Great Again !

Indoctrination is, so I'd say, an inevitable aspect of education. — Moliere

What about critical thinking? It's not a hard subject to teach, but the benefits are innumerable and priceless.

Yeah, psychology majors are excellent in the art of manipulation of people. Perhaps, we need more people educated about their own inner workings as to prevent the exploitation of conditioned responses and insecurities. However, at some point, people do realize that their lives and happiness have been subterfuge'd to the whims and desires of... the invisible hand?

Is this some innuendo to Ayn Rand and Objectivism?

I think an important thing to consider that sacrificing your habitat for the sake of a higher GDP is practically unavoidable in a consumerist and competitive economy.

It's really a sort of miracle that countries actually can look past GDP growth for the sake of preserving the environment for higher GDP growth (e.g Paris climate agreement).


However, I believe that we are past the point of no return in terms of climate change. I guess we'll just to adapt and learn how to live in a new environment.

Sort of relevant:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50

Now that we have e gotten sex out of the way, we can talk about masturbation.

Not all has been lost. There have been a few public educators that recognized the problems presented in this thread, such as John Dewey, that education needs to be an active and fun endeavor. Unfortunately, people have settled for the easier option in my opinion.

You could really distil the sentiment of this post with the simple truism that there can be no object without a subject.

The study of the relations between the subject and object has been neglected greatly by public educators for the simple reason that public education treats every subject as an object, of which, knowledge must be poured into, which is rather stupefying and regretable.

Do you mean the use of sex to advertise other products? Or are you talking specifically about the sex industry? — Baden

I guess you can say both. Either way, there's exploitation of people going on in both cases.

I'd be interested how one ought to solve this situation?

Is it because of the erosion of a strong public ethos? Is it the sense of 'individualism' instilled on American's? Maybe people have become egocentric to a large degree... due to, what? Is it rampant consumerism?

Any hypothesis on the topic would be appreciated.

Not everyone can become a Cynic or move to India, close to the Dalai Lama.

In reality it is affected by the persons desire and ego, and a persons inability to accept. — eb0t

An important fact about self-esteem is that it has become synonymous with the possession of material goods and status (again material goods, like a home, a nice car, and a high paying job). Thus, a person who can reject the desire for pumping up one's self-esteem with material possession and good, is in actuality the person with the highest self-esteem (think Stoics or Buddhists).

I would like to point out that advertisements are insidious. Meaning, they prey on our sense of self-esteem and ego in telling us that you should not deny yourself pleasure. And that sort of closes the loop, one can not dissociate from the source of discontent due to chasing after pleasure, and if someone were to convince someone that all this talk about what is good, beneficial, fun, and that you deserve it because we associate the commercials with our own selves, then they will be ostracised or despised for pointing out the truth.

I can't improve on anything MU has said, but just to emphasize that there's no escaping the basic formula: Modern forms of entertainment result in the emotional equivalent of a sugar high and they are no more necessary for us psychologically than sugar is physiologically. — Baden

Hence, my sentiment towards the advertisement of sex. Food porn being another example.

It's extraordinary, really. Look at the depth of concern expressed in most of the responses on this thread about trivial bodily matters by supposedly sane and intelligent people. — unenlightened

Yes; but, they're still human.

Someone mentioned a video called, The Century of the Self.

It's 3 hours long; but, can be split up in 3 parts for watching. Never felt so enlightened watching something about the evolution of the American psyche.

Here it is in case one is lazy (as I am):

Everyone finds them annoying; they are designed to upset. This is the whole foundation of consumer society. We at UNcorp set out to upset you, annoy you, make you anxious and fearful. — unenlightened

Then why do people still put up with this collective neurosis? Can anything be done about this predicament? Excuse me, I need to take my happy pills now.

Researchers at UNcorp have devised the first and only protective head gear for you and your loved ones that will kill 99% (recognise that figure?) of all intrusive thoughts. — unenlightened

Touche.

The media manufacture want. Typically, they do so by creating insecurities. They have to make people uncomfortable in some way and that creates the desire for easement that is then used to sell something. — unenlightened

Some will say that this constant feeling of lacking something or feeling insecure will lead to alienation from the wants of society dictated by the aliens at the top. Personally, I feel like everyone subject to the will and demand of society feel incredibly neurotic.

What's your opinion on this exploitation of basic human instincts? Do you think it's something particular to capitalism or not?

First - why does it have such an effect upon people? Where does its sting come from? Let's think about both the celibate here and the indulgent - taking the two extreme cases. Why do both of them suffer? — Agustino

I think they suffer due to the fact that as humans we tend towards the mean. Only unique individuals with extraordinary spiritual and intellectual strength can deviate from the norm and not have remorse over separating from the herd or feel depressed about not keeping up with the race to the top of the mountain.

Since the psyche of mankind is open before us, presumably we can take steps to alter it. — Agustino

Yes, this has been attempted in the past as seen by social planners and regimes characterized by oppression and brute force and uniformity. Have those social experiments worked? Not in my humble opinion.

Third - how is one to live in a sexually obsessed society without being themselves sexually obsessed? — Agustino

I think, strength, courage, and zeal are important factors here in establishing a healthy and independant psyche. Not everyone has the willpower to actually alter their behavior and disregard the collective hive mind.

It seems that we are sort of cursed precisely because we - unlike animals - can form fantasies, and so we must learn how to relate with them, without crushing the boundary that always necessarily exists between fantasy and reality. — Agustino

Yes, it's a rather sad fact that people resort to trivial distractions and such fantacies to defend an overinflated ego or overactive libido, while those at the top are quite satisfied with their sense of status and seek every opportunity to confirm it relative to others. Speaking of which, I never understood the biological need to be competative against your own kin. Was there some evolutionary advantage to this behavior?

But in the past, they never acted on it - they never confused fantasy with reality. — Agustino

I would disagree here. I hold the notion that we are born all equal with respect to each other; but, then through the need to individualize and form an identity, we differentiated some of our characteristics to stand out from the rest of the crowd. I mean, England might be a good example of an outdated political system, that people cling on-to out of sympathy with the past. The advent of the EU and supranational powers and interests seems to unite and enjoy the benefits of cooperation instead of brute competition. Many people still think the EU is a pipe dream, in my view it's one of the more astonishing feats of human achievement in recent history. It would be sad to see it go away.

I think this collapsing of the boundary between fantasy and reality is one of the biggest problems of modern society. People are no longer able to enjoy their fantasises without seeking to bring them into reality, and out of the realm of phantasma. In fact, they confuse reality with fantasy, and this confusion underlies all of the problem. — Agustino

Ahh, but to live in a fantasy indicates that you know what your fantacisizing about. I do agree however, that it's a hard task to know that you are dreaming, when you are dreaming.

I think that, to be honest, the media actually are in some way the psyche. They are a representation of the psyche of most people - of their hidden wants and desires. — Agustino

Not entirely. Why would people settle for bread and circuses only? I mean, after all, one does get quite bored with bread after a while. I see the media as tapping into the rather primitive aspect of human nature...

However, things were not always like this. There was a time when facts mattered and truth was sought after. An understanding was important before committing to a position. Am I romanticizing the past? Perhaps, but I never really liked the invisible hand directing my behavior.

Now, the media are not the psyche. — unenlightened

Such blasphemy! How can you NOT watch your favorite puppet regurgitate some narrative that was passed down to him from the 'aliens' at the very top?

Suffice to say that science deals in objectivity, and when you study people as objects you learn only how to manipulate them. — unenlightened

Ahh, a Marxist interpretation of capitalism bellows the mob! The free markets know what is best for you!

It is not true and you are being manipulated. Resist! — unenlightened

Shouts the crazy at Hyde Park. Resistance is futile! Consume, procreate, spend.

People are terribly conformist, and the media work hard to convince us that we should be wanting grab women's pussies if we are real men. But actually, few of us do. Politics, sport, work, money holidays, food, even children and pets dominate my interactions with folks both face to face and on the net; sex is hardly mentioned, for all its pervasive presence in the papers and television and film. But your friends seem to be different. Perhaps I live in a little island of rectitude, but I have been propositioned once by a woman of the streets and that aside, I cannot remember having talked about sex with anyone but Mrs un to any significant degree in twenty years, excluding the odd philosophical comment or joke that is hardly obsessive. So I speak as I find, that the folks I come across are by no means obsessed with sex, but have much more interesting things to obsess about, much to the chagrin of the media, no doubt. — unenlightened

One can make the case that sex is idolized and hence many people are not "living up to" their expectations about sex. Ever notice the Viagra commercials? Why are so many couples basing their marriage on the sexual performance of their respective partner, as absurd as that sounds!

For example, why is pornography so littered over the internet? Seemingly because people can't satisfy their own wants for their perfect version of sex and start searching/fantasizing for their favorite videos online, rather hopelessly.

I find it somewhat paradoxical that I (as a not trained psychotherapist) would have to make the case to a trained psychotherapist that sex makes the world go round. Perhaps, you have concluded through the many years of experience with people, that they don't really care about 'sex' as it is hyped up to be? Then next logical question, is then, what the hell is wrong with society if there is a disconnect between the individual and social 'operant' behavior?

It is not for me to tell you whether you are miserable or not, or obsessed or not, or indulging in a sense of superiority or not. Or even being ruled by a fear of relationship - that is a possibility too. But comments elsewhere eventually drew me to read this thread, which I found rather sad and unenlightening, so I thought to make some contribution to the rather overheated conversation. Good luck to you in your abstinence, and there's no need to justify it to me or anyone here. — unenlightened

Maybe I need to feel special? Maybe I want to be closer to God? It might be that I want to be an angel when I die... Who knows these things? Rarely reason precedes emotions, which is not to say that reason can't steer emotions or limit their scope. Forgive me, I have a fetish with reason over emotions. Perhaps I'm a German at heart?


I try and be a philosopher as I am one at heart. My love for knowledge overrides my desire for sex. Something tells me it's overrated, senseless, trivial, and a waste of time. I have not only done this to 'sex'; but, also to my social life, and other areas of my being. There is nothing more enjoyable, for me, to do on a Friday night than to read some philosophy or think about what Wittgenstein would have said something so fascinating.

Or even being ruled by a fear of relationship - that is a possibility too. — unenlightened

Now, that is an interesting hypothesis. I suppose it can be true to some degree. Doesn't bother me though. Strange, eh?

But comments elsewhere eventually drew me to read this thread, which I found rather sad and unenlightening, so I thought to make some contribution to the rather overheated conversation. — unenlightened

It may be sad; but, it is true. And that it is true is an affirmation of my petty and rather uninteresting life, which is fine by me.

Let me put it very simply; if one sees clearly that sex is not necessary to one's life, then there is no difficulty. I am like this with cars. I know most people around me have a car, and I see the use, but also the problems, and it is no effort for me to decide to avoid having one. Sometimes I have difficulties because I don't have one, but those difficulties are small compared to the trouble and expense of owning one. If sex is like that, then there is no problem leaving it behind. But If I found that I was constantly thinking about having a car, and disparaging those that have them, and lauding myself for doing without, then the truth would be that I was more obsessed with cars than those that had them. And that would be silly.

So to be free from the obsession with sex that some people (but probably fewer than appears) have is certainly to be looked for. But celibacy maintained through gritted teeth, as it were, is not any kind of freedom, and maintains the obsession far more strongly than having a sexual relationship. — unenlightened

Yes; but, don't you feel joy from not having a car and smile to yourself at times when you see that someone gets a ticket or is stopped so the Bobby can reach his quota?

I feel different. Different in a good way. I feel happy that I am not like the rest of people, whom I find more strange than relatable. Maybe it's my genetics or maybe it's my psychology, maybe it's me just being me? I find it funny that people tell me that I will be unhappy or miserable or not fulfilling a bodily need. It's really hilarious the belief people have about sex, and mind you I keep a mental record of how often I think about it, and it ain't that much (hopefully less and less as the years go by)!

Cheers.

Here's my simple "conclusion" about drugs. Namely, if they aren't psychologically or physiologically addictive, then they aren't necessarily a bad thing. This would seem to rule out most stimulants, opioids, sedatives, and dissociatives with leaving in psychedelics.

I don't use psychedelics myself due to a medical condition that would be exacerbated by their use; but, I do believe they have their use in controlled settings. Nor, have I ever used drugs to get "happy". I have used the stimulant medication in the past, such as Ritalin and amphetamines for a lifelong struggle with ADD and to function on a higher level (read nootropics). I've even gone so far as dabbling with the world of "research chemicals" where drugs are modified by a slight degree (add a fluorine atom to the structure, etc.), where you are able to obtain them online. I can confidently say that my curiosity with these "research chemicals" have had more negatives than positives overall in my life, and I eventually became addicted to some of them (Ritalin analogs mainly) due to them increasing my self-esteem, confidence, and attention. The other issue people encounter with any type of drug is also tolerance. Once you take a medication your brain adjusts to return itself to homeostasis. Trying to "beat" homeostasis is dangerous and self-destructive.

I have seen through the underlying cause of my issues with stimulant medications in an irrational belief to function always at 100%, do everything immediately and completely, and find an artificially induced sense of "joy" out of inherently meaningless and mundane tasks.

Regarding the OP, there is a serious discussion currently in the medical field about the ethics of "doping" mentally. You see it all the time on college campuses, where students will take amphetamines or methylphenidate to boost their desire to complete rather idiotic and mundane assignments. The tendency at the moment in the medical field is to discourage patients from seeking a mental boost from drugs despite there being evidence of some positive effects of certain drugs on cognition. My personal belief is that there will inevitably be demand for such medications with less serious liability (modafinil?) to the patient and their well-being.

This might come off as dangerous and stupid; but, I'd rather take some Ritalin and read an interesting book, then have a beer and watch TV or smoke pot and be inebriated; but, then again things are become more and more a type of 'Brave New World".

We might then discuss whether any of these are good reasons in particular circumstances. The latter, for example, might work for monks, but not so much for priests, and even less for the laity. — unenlightened

Sure, not everyone can be Marcus Aurelius or a St. Augustine or a Buddha; but, from a peculiar point of view, when someone values the teachings of Jesus or Zeno or Buddha, which aren't that many people, then one feels compelled to imitate them and try and follow their footsteps. While, you may say that "truth is a pathless land" according to one of your favorite philosophers, I would have to say the is some truth in what they say. Time would attest to that fact.

If society is obsessed with matters such as sex and sexuality, then I say fuck society. Erich Fromm would agree?

Yes, I don't see why not...

The premises of the argument are taken from the quoted post by question. It isn't a position I hold myself. — unenlightened

I think there's a misconception here. Take the following:

1. Unfulfilled wants and desires cause suffering.
2. I feel compelled to not indulge in the pleasurable aspects of life.
3. Therefore I suffer.

One can imagine desire trying to negate it's own existence through higher level desires (super-ego if you will); but, this indeed would leave an individual constantly in contradiction with their own desires, possibly leading to abnormal/depressive/low self-esteem/yadayada behavior. The reason is the savior here when conflicting desires are at odds with one another. Reason, given enough mindfulness, can recognize desires and NOT act upon them.

My rather important point here is that one not needs (rather wants) to fight a desire with another desire as if being stuck in a Chinese finger trap; but, rather change your values of said behavior or what I have been hoping for, placing value over a certain set of ethos regarding sexuality.

This is not the ideal solution, though, as can be seen through the teaching of Buddhism in regards to unrestrained desires.

Take Myshkin from Dostoyevsky's Idiot. — Agustino

I have to read more Dostoyevsky, that is for certain.

Yes I definitely agree here, although reason isn't completely independent of the passions in the following sense. What you aim for is determined by your passions. For example, someone plays golf because they like it, while someone else plays tennis because that's what they like. Passion still does that, and it's not negative to that extent. However to the extent that it would make you chase after, for example, sex, I agree it's negative. — Agustino

While, I do not think we have absolute control over our passions, and would rather live in the world where we don't, as emotions are quite good, as opposed to those devoid of them (sociopaths, psychopaths)...

However, I do think the will precedes reason; but, the amount of work and effort that reason applies in polishing and making a goal a reality is certainly underappreciated in my opinion.

Reason has a will of its own.

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." — Emptyheady

This is fundamentally flawed. The success of therapy and psychology along with specific elements of it, like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, attest against this interpretation of reason only being a slave to passions.

A personal question I suppose, but it does bear some relevance, which is whether you are intentionally and rationally denying yourself opportunity or whether the complexities of initiating a relationship have simply been too great for you to overcome, so you've rationalized your disengagement as being a decision of a higher order, as opposed to admitting to and attempting to correct social ineptitude. — Hanover

I suppose up until this point my denial of the act of sex has been a semi-conscious decision. I can say that I have had the opportunity to "seize the opportunity," so to speak, but have never acted on it. Like, I said, this is probably due to psychological reasons as it's impossible for me to give you a clear and objective answer as you surely know.

It's relevant simply because it goes to whether your Stocism is a choice directed to higher happiness, as opposed to it being the path of least resistance. — Hanover

Chicken or egg? Is Stoicism all just a rationalization for, as you say, my personal social ineptitude or has my social ineptitude resulted from my Stoic attitude (as if!).

I can say that it's far from certain (and candidly doubtful) whether abandoning desire will lead to happiness as opposed to robbing you of those things that really do matter. — Hanover

Maybe not directly to happiness; but, certainly less unhappiness.

Hello there comrade!

Yes, but if sex is available it would be a fulfilled natural desire like eating and sleeping. And if it's not available, there's no need to make any effort to deny it to yourself. — Baden

Yes; but, we are insatiable creatures. Nothing seems to satisfy us. I might be taking things to the extreme; but, I deny myself any wants and desires that are contrary to reason.

I don't necessarily accept that "self-mastery" is the right phrase here. I associate self-mastery with the elimination of negative behaviours and the cultivation of positive ones. Sex is certainly not a negative behaviour on a biological level. It's actually beneficial for health as we've more or less agreed. Then on a social and emotional level, some types of sex may be good, some bad, and it's quite possible to avoid the bad and pursue the good. Finally, on an intellectual level sex is more or less irrelevant either way. Given that, I would refer to the long-term self-denial of sex more as self-mortification than self-mastery just as denying yourself junk food might be referred to as self-mastery while denying yourself the required amount of calories a day -even if the food is healthy- would be self-mortification. — Baden

You call it self-mortification, I call it self-mastery. Semantics.

Hand-waving isn't an argument. We have drives and they have psychological effects and it doesn't take much psychobabble to work out that denying natural drives may cause physical and psychological harm. Having said that, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you find celibacy works for you, then it works, and no amount of psychological theorizing can make it wrong. — Baden

But, isn't it amazing that we can overcome these drives and desires? There is an implicit triumph of reason and intellect over the incessant pangs of the most primitive aspect of human nature.

St. Augustine's Confessions can be summarized in that he stopped having sex because he loved God so much more.