Thanks. I guess everyone brings whatever experience they have to the table. I find the work rewarding but it has its days.

I should say am not an expert on therapy and therapeutic modalities. My background, amongst other things, is in suicide intervention, post incident trauma support and alcohol and drug counselling and psycho-social services management. I prefer to leave it there.

Therapy is so broad and complex a subject that almost anything you say about it, the opposite is also true. There are dubious therapies and bad therapists. The best practice, I believe, informs the person you are working with what the principles of the process and beliefs behind it are. Some people will want a reading list. Some people will disagree and move on. That's ok too. Therapy is unlikely to work if it is not voluntary and if it isn't largely directed by the client who sets the goals.

I also think that often people require less therapy and fewer professionals in their lives and more meaningful connections and activities.

For the most part, yes, but the comparison was a bit glib so not to be take too literally. I was essentially making the point that good professional care does not require a deep emotional connection. In fact, an emotional connection or a friendship is often a hinderance - the person who has an emotional investment in the client is likely to screw up. You don't hear or see very well if you are emotionally involved.

The care offered by a professional is like being friendly without being a friend. It's an important distinction that probably needs to go with a lengthy dissertation on professional boundaries and the like. A professional offers care in the sense of a duty to provide a quality service that meets the person's needs, just as a reputable mechanic provides a quality service to a car that ensures it is safe to driver regardless of who the drive is. All very general I know.

Didn't you get the TikTok dancing racoon video which proves this?

I've come to see that. I've certainly been guilty in my time for holding absolute certainty that there is no absolute certainty and other neophyte conceptual gaffes.

Can you doubt your death or your purpose in life without presuposing your life? Each act of doubt rests on something that is undoubted.

That's part of the logical structure of doubt.

The habit in philosophy has been to focus on doubt, with the result that most philosophical discussion - especially amongst dilettantes - is excessively cynical. The result is malformed notions such as idealism and solipsism.

So take the notion you used: "absolute truth". What that is remains obscure. Like Douglas Adams ultimate question of life the universe and everything, folk don't take the time to work out what it is they are looking for. The result is they jump to absurdity, perhaps god, perhaps nihilism.

SO if you really want to doubt, try doubting that you understand "absolute truth". Do some conceptual analysis, see if you can work out what you mean. — Banno

Nicely put. Crystal clear.

Thanks for your response. I respect this. :up:

Do you think that CBT or REBT would work on someone like Prince Siddhattha? I think it wouldn't. Would you say the reason would be that he had some kind of brain damage? — baker

Clumsy. I have no knowledge of religious figures like the Buddha, but brain damage might explain them. But no - when I highlighted that point it was to find you one example of people who might not benefit. .

You and your three monkeys again. — baker

They are actually your three wise monkey's again. And I guess the interpretation of this favored line of yours is an attempt to suggest that I am not seeing the full picture. Presumably through some kind of selective blindness. Is this a smear, or was your intent less cynical than it appears?

Or maybe it was just an expression of your unwillingness to trust another person's experience on the internet? I understand. You have no idea who I am and what I know, so it's kind of a random statement. If I have your intent correct, I would have probably asked instead - "How do you know that you are not cherry picking your results here?" My answer would be - evidence over three decades. Now this doesn't have to satisfy you and nor should it. And you can't investigate it further as you won't have scrutiny of the work.

Gary Cooper would never be cynical as you sometimes appear to be. Maybe you need to turn in your little tin sheriff's badge and be the deputy instead.

IE, art happens, art being a subjective experience of an aesthetic, when an observer having a particular state of mind resonates with a particular objective fact in the world. — RussellA

This seems very prescriptive. May I clarify? Does this mean if I walk up to Rembrandt's Night Watch and have an experience no different to looking at a lunch box lid, the paining does not count as art? And does this mean that art can be any object which causes a mind to resonate aesthetically?

I think people worry about all sorts of doubts, like whether the surgery will work, whether the job will remain, whether the relationship will continue, whether the team will win, etc. — Hanover

I agree. But I guess I don't put those into the category of doubt so much as undifferentiated anxieties of living. But what you've highlighted is just how fast and sprawling the question is and how it would benefit from some specificity. I took it as being about ontological dread. Perhaps wrongly.

Living with doubt may involve some mental anguish — Jack Cummins

Perhaps, but have you noticed that it depends upon what belief you are doubting? No one is traumatised by the notion that they doubt if the platypus is a mammal. Generally anxiety takes place if you are conditioned into thinking that certainty is possible and specifically that it is possible about 'supernatural' beliefs - for instance life after death and god stuff. The other belief that seems to preoccupy certain people is whether we are living in a simulation or not or if what we call reality is a fancy cover for some heavy duty idealism.

I was wondering what are the thoughts of the community about this, let me know:) — Lea

It's hard to know what the question means exactly so I guess I'll answer this as if you are asking: "Can a person hold beliefs which they doubt?"

Yes. Doesn't everyone except fundamentalists and crack pots?

Would life as an immortal real be with less meaning? Can't we just invent it as we go in any event? — TiredThinker

If people were immortal (a horrible idea) it would obviously make life utterly different in every way imaginable from the question of meaning to how often to have a colonoscopy. :joke:

You don't have to be dead to be disheveled. Trust me. And if you've ever met my uncle Frank you'll see that decomposition can happen to any man who hasn't had a new idea since 1965. Spirits or soul however - I don't accept as a thing. They seem to be suggested to make us feel better about the inevitable trajectory from cradle to grave and oblivion.

I think you're working with an impoverished notion of faith. Faith can consist in an elaborate metaphysics as much as it can consist in simply accepting Jesus into your heart. — Janus

I think we often use the word faith in various imprecise ways. Normally it refers to the process by which people believe, not the content of the belief. As in Hebrews 11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. At its most charitable, faith is understood as an intuitive or personal understanding (if not certainty) of a god.

In theory this Nobody could identify with the species and its rare, heroic specimens (Einstein and Tolstoy and Lincoln, etc.) — hanaH

A subcategory I am very amused by is the person who has read a great philosopher and assumes that they are now a philosopher too, with all the abundant creative powers of that famous writer.

Ok, yes I have said the same many times. Ironic and truthful. Nicely put.

The 'magic' of identity is still here after all, if one can manage it. — hanaH

Tantalizing. Can you expand briefly?

Interesting how you choose to see this. My experience over 30 years suggests no contempt and good results. There is no need for a worldview be it religion or humanism. Ideas from CBT work as a practical tools. That said, I am no disciple of Eliis' or any therapy.

Do any ideas work for everyone?
— Tom Storm

Why is that so? Surely you, given your profession, must have some explanation for it. You can't just chalk it up to Mercury retrograde. — baker

People don't always have explanations. But I do know that if someone has significant brain damage (which is very common in people with trauma histories - injuries/suicide attempts/overdoses) they may not be able to participate for reason of memory, and diminished capacity (for want of a better term).

Perhaps you could cite something — Janus

Just YouTube video interviews where they ask Dawkins do you want all religions ended. And is there anything good in religion? If I'd known I were going to need to cite it I would have made notes. :smile:

Hitchens was out out and out, unequivocally against religion. — Janus

I think the problem with the popstar-atheists is that they use aggrieved hyperbole too frequently and this is taken for a lack of humor and a fanaticism. Hitchens is perhaps the only fun one of the 4.

I agree that they would all like religion to be gone as the end game but surprisingly they also said positive things about some features of religion and especially the impulse behind religion. I may have look to see what I can find and keep these on record as this comes up sometimes.

Why doesn't it work for everyone? — baker

Do any ideas work for everyone?

I haven't read that, but I get what you mean by "sterility or humorlessness about the enterprise". Some, like Dawkins and the so-called "Four Horsemen" seem to want to dismiss, even eliminate from human life, all religion, and that is in my view a ridiculous, not to mention arrogant, aim. — Janus

They are not my favorite people but I don't think what you have said is correct. I have heard at least three our of the four horsemen (esp Dawkins) talk specifically about not wanting an end of all religion and also venerating religious architecture and hymns and writings as being fundamental pillars of civilization. They also elevate the sense of the numinous - Harris particularly and has gone into a kind of pseudo spiritual self-help mode. Dawkins talks about being moved to tears by religious music and art. I think it is way more complicated.

Cool. All I know about him is that he became a venerated and influential teacher.

Pinker defends scientism essentially — hanaH

I think that's too strong. Pinker defends the Enlightenment tradition (which is unfashionable in many parts and provokes anger) and certainly privileges science and rationality. This does not necessitate scientism. Philosopher Susan Haack, who disparages scientism, is also a fulsome defender of the Enlightenment tradition and defends science as one of the most useful methods for acquiring reliable knowledge to meet goals.

Sounds like something said by someone very powerful, someone on whom others depend for mercy. — baker

That might be because it was said by someone very powerful... But you know what? It's been used powerfully with people who are homeless and on the margins for many years and it often transfers effortlessly to them. People who slash themselves with broken bottles and run into oncoming cars as a way to manage emotional distress can change using this approach. Does if work for everyone? Of course not. But it does for many.

Duh, of course it's an important term! People have been fighting over it for millennia, so it definitely has to matter! — baker

Are you prepared to say some more? People will fight over jelly beans.

Well, someone making the claim "No one can ever know that they have access to truth in any absolute sense" certainly presumes to have access to absolute truth. — baker

Yes, if you take the claim literally. I guess J is using 'absolute truth' to mean something a bit more adventurous, possibly transcendent. It is an interesting question. Absolute truth? What is this meant to be?-It is such a versatile term and can represent anything from Sufi mysticism to Scientology. Is this a term that means anything much to you?

It is true that reality is conditioning us to be predators. In a certain sense you could even say that all the evil things human ever do come from beeing tricked by their environment. I consider for example my brain to belong to my physical environment and it can trick me hard into doing evil things especially if it is hurt into the wrong place (brain injuries can turn you into a psychopath). However if dualism is right one might say that my soul is not exactly evil but very flawed if it can be tricked into doing any type of bullshit by such outside forces. — FalseIdentity

You throw around a lot of terms and ideas that suggest a systematic view of reality and a pecking order of ideas. How do you determine what is evil and what is good? How do you decide what is harm and what fosters flourishing? What is your foundation for using such ideas - apart from emotion?

Thank you.

Prove yourself brave, truthful and unselfish, and someday you will be a real boy, Pinocchio. :joke:

Yep.

There an old TS Eliot essay Shakespeare and the stoicism of Seneca.

Thanks - I may not have time as I'm under the pump at work (COVID emergencies, reports). The connection to CBT is clear and I studied Albert Ellis, who developed the foundations of this intervention based on some ideas from Stoicism (particularly Epictetus) and others. As REBT or Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy.

One of the most powerful ideas I ever heard (when I heard it first 35 years ago) is - "It isn't what people say to you or do that upsets you, it is how you chose to react.' Simple and almost a homily on the surface, but so often when people 'go off the rails' it is because they have been unable to hold this in mind.

Epictetus, in the first century A.D. wrote in the Enchiridion: “Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of them.”

My question is: How valuable is the help of those who do not actually care? Can a system that is based on salary replace genuine human kindness? — Wheatley

Does your mechanic need to care for you to do a good job on your car? I'd settle for non-judgemental professional skill over emotive caring most days.

Human kindness is overrated. People who 'mean well' often cause significant damage to others in need precisely because they care without having any understanding of how people recover or develop the skills of self-efficacy.

By the way, people facing mental health challenges often achieve recovery and develop solutions outside of formal therapy simply by getting psychosocial support - meaningful activities, a community hub and the support of peers. A therapeutic environment and a feeling of purpose can do wonders.

I am very interested in the 'argument from reason', but I don't want to use it to persuade others that God exists. I think what interests me about it, is the claim that reason itself is not something that can be or ought to be explained in terms of any other factor. Whereas nowadays it is widely accepted that, because we evolved, then reason is, in some sense, just another natural faculty, like a particularly successful adaptation, something that is a consequence of an essentially unreasoning process, which is assumed by nearly all scientific philosophy. — Wayfarer

Thanks, yes, As it happens, I was just listening to Steven Pinker discuss this view of reason via his new book Rationality. It does interest me that he and other Enlightenment tradition inheritors seem to use the word reality with minimal philosophical reflection. It seems that Pinker defines reason as coming into being as the most efficient method to help humans achieve their goals.

When I raised Plantinga earlier FI said he was familiar with this argument. Did you mention at some point you were potentially doing further study on transcendental arguments and the evolutionary arguments against naturalism? Any quick essays you can suggest?

There is no multifactorial right and wrong assessment mechanism.
— Tom Storm

I disagree — Average

Well then why are you asking if there is one? If you have one demonstrate it.

I'm going to opt out of this. If it goes somewhere I might drop in again. Cheers.

In responding note also to highlight the quote and select 'quote' so we know who you have responded to

I’m asking how we can know that our confidence in our own decisions is justified or not. — Average

You seem not to understand me. The point is about what decisions? Every situation is different. Right or wrong about mass murder or right or wrong about giving money to the poor? There is no multifactorial right and wrong assessment mechanism.

Would you mind identifying precisely where I was unclear And what kind of examples would be helpful? — Average

You are asking general questions that have no answer. Be specific. As above. Morality will have a different pathways to aesthetics. - do you follow?

Objective to which question and in what context? To be right or wrong about aesthetics is rather different than on capital punishment, say.

I think it would help if you sketched out what it is you are asking with greater clarity using examples. Generalized discussion (minus specific examples) often gets us nowhere.