Philosophy Now Forum

artisticsolution wrote:AS: LOL Wow...too much information there for me to decipher....I don't know about all that....I only know of a few mental illnesses....some of which the people who have them can fully function in the world and some can't. What I don't like is you telling me I don't like this group or another just because I say someone is mentally ill.

You really did that to yourself. Calling somebody mentally ill is by large a grave insult, and when you tag people of an opinion you don't like to be mentally ill you are making that same grave insult by equating the condition of those who actually have mental illnesses with those people you don't like the opinions of. You can't just trivialize this away, take responsibility and realize the implications of saying that there is sickness in somebody else's mind.

artisticsolution wrote:Plus I just don't understand that rational anyway....it makes me think you hate mentally ill people or something.

I pity them, I've met quite a few of them. My first sex was with a schizophrenic girl who had more personalities than I could count. I love her in my own modest ways, so no, I don't think I hate anybody mentally ill, but I don't think they love being mentally ill, either, despite moments of fun (like meeting all the crazy alters of the girl), and for that your lack of respect for them is astonishing. When you name the entire or half or a quarter even of the world mentally ill you inflate what it means to be mentally ill for those who actually are mentally ill and it's almost as if you are turning it into some kind of absurd joke.

artisticsolution wrote:See what I am saying? If you think that by me calling someone mentally ill means that I don't like them, then you must not like mentally ill people and think others won't either if they find out they are mentally ill.

That is not logical. You insulting people does not in any logical way lead to me hate the people referred to in the insult. Saying that somebody suffers from a category when they are not is insulting because it's disrespectful and the conditions for thinking like that are among them the condition that a person's mind is of a negative value "needing repair" (you yet to tell me whether mental illness actually means anything negative at all to you or whether you think it's a joke), but actually being a suffering person is not a consequent reason of dislike for that sake.

artisticsolution wrote:I have to meet the person before I can tell you I like someone or I don't like them. I can't tell you I don't like someone who is mentally ill if I have never met them. Understand?

You don't like them in such a way you are willing to show them fundamental respect. In that regard you don't like them, and that is consequent fact. Or you have fucked-up understanding of people which objectifies (de-humanization) them so that liking them does not have to include those same people's sense of self and emotions and so forth.

artisticsolution wrote:VOT:Would you go about figuring out each and every war criminal to see if they were indeed bad people or would you allow yourself to have a prejudice against them? If your answer is that you'd allow yourself the prejudice then that's exactly what a racist might do.

AS: This is offensive. You have no idea who I am or what I think. It is a personal attack to suit your needs for the purpose of winning an argument. Back off this practice before I go all bitch on your ass.

Who cares if it's offensive? There's nothing wrong I say there. I'm exploring what the heck you mean and that's perfectly innocent a way of figuring it out. Answer the bloody question and don't go on whining. If you have an objection to something which actually is in the text as opposed to what delusions you have about what I intend with it then you are free to raise them or rephrase my question if you still manage to get to my point with the rephrasing.

artisticsolution wrote:AS: Here is where you and I part. If the Holocaust wasn't an example of mass delusion and irrationality I don't know what is....I hope in the future there will be a pill designed that will promote clarity of thought. I also hope no one makes us take it...because that too would be irrational. If such a pill is ever designed then it should be available. but not mandatory...unless it is used as a replacement for a criminal punishment, i.e. in lieu of going to prison.

Oh... my... god. A pill that makes people into what you want them to be? Have you any understanding at all of what you are saying?

VOT:
I pity them, I've met quite a few of them. My first sex was with a schizophrenic girl who had more personalities than I could count. I love her in my own modest ways, so no, I don't think I hate anybody mentally ill, but I don't think they love being mentally ill, either, despite moments of fun (like meeting all the crazy alters of the girl), and for that your lack of respect for them is astonishing. When you name the entire or half or a quarter even of the world mentally ill you inflate what it means to be mentally ill for those who actually are mentally ill and it's almost as if you are turning it into some kind of absurd joke.

AS: You are a hypocrite...you take advantage of a severely mentally ill person and then you have the nerve to say my argument is an absurd joke? How can you be sure everyone of her personalities agreed to have sex with you? You saw an opportunity and you took it....and then to call it a pity fuck?! You disgust me.

The Voice of Time wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:AS: Here is where you and I part. If the Holocaust wasn't an example of mass delusion and irrationality I don't know what is....I hope in the future there will be a pill designed that will promote clarity of thought. I also hope no one makes us take it...because that too would be irrational. If such a pill is ever designed then it should be available. but not mandatory...unless it is used as a replacement for a criminal punishment, i.e. in lieu of going to prison.

Oh... my... god. A pill that makes people into what you want them to be? Have you any understanding at all of what you are saying?

Oh, but you will entertain the idea that in the future we may find a cure for mortality? I was simply supposing that like physical ailments that we can cure now as opposed to in the past...we may find similar cure for mental diseases. Is it too far fetched for you trekkie?

artisticsolution wrote:AS: Sorry, I don't think I said anywhere that irrational thinking does not promote happiness. It may, it may not.

So you don't see a correlation between health and happiness? You really mean it's possible to be unhappy but healthy? Because that was what you were arguing, and to my ear they are both very closely connected. Of course you can have a fit body and be very unhappy, but you're not in a healthy position if you are unhappy, and I'm wondering how exactly you can separate the two, unless you are not separating them and in that case I was very right to infer that indeed you were saying irrational thinking does not promote happiness.

artisticsolution wrote:I have seen some mentally ill people believe they are in a field of flowers when they are in a padded room.

artisticsolution wrote:Besides, I don't think children can be used in this particular argument as their brain and thoughts are not fully formed. I would rather stick to adults if you don't mind.

I mind very much that you find it necessary to discriminate between young people and adults when it comes to happiness. Happiness is not a matter of age. Where is your absurdity gonna end? It's perfectly possible for an adult to live in a child's world and for a child to live in an adult's world. Their means for achieving might differ but their results can be more than worthy of their titles (child's world or adult's world), they are not two species which you can just separate. I have to find a new word for people like you, I'm so damn tired of facing people who thinks it's okay to label people by age, whether it's too young, too old, to not enough, too much... indeed there are things that often come with age, but let us speak of those instead of discriminating people by the mere date they are born.

artisticsolution wrote:AS: You are a hypocrite...you take advantage of a severely mentally ill person and then you have the nerve to say my argument is an absurd joke? How can you be sure everyone of her personalities agreed to have sex with you? You saw an opportunity and you took it....and then to call it a pity fuck?! You disgust me.

There's nothing hypocritical here. I pity mentally ill people but I didn't have sex with a mentally ill person out of pity, that concept unfortunately does not even exist in me. I had sex with her because she was horny as hell and because I wanted to get to know her intimately. She was her main self when she had sex with me. It doesn't work that way you must understand (at least with her) that you just randomly face one of her alters (besides, her alters are not recognized by her as actually other human beings... I think she thinks more of them like theatrical characters which has taken on a life of their own and she's merely a possessed person. The only real human is her main self, her original self, the rest are just roles the mind and body assumes occasionally).

And no, not all of her alters agreed to have sex with me when I met them in the aftermath, but that's not really their business anyways, they are just freeriders on her mind and body and not the owners of it, she is the sole owner of it. Besides, they have separate memories, so she first have to tell them.

Last but not least: why are you getting so damn personal about this?

The Voice of Time wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Besides, I don't think children can be used in this particular argument as their brain and thoughts are not fully formed. I would rather stick to adults if you don't mind.

I mind very much that you find it necessary to discriminate between young people and adults when it comes to happiness. Happiness is not a matter of age. Where is your absurdity gonna end? It's perfectly possible for an adult to live in a child's world and for a child to live in an adult's world. Their means for achieving might differ but their results can be more than worthy of their titles (child's world or adult's world), they are not two species which you can just separate. I have to find a new word for people like you, I'm so damn tired of facing people who thinks it's okay to label people by age, whether it's too young, too old, to not enough, too much... indeed there are things that often come with age, but let us speak of those instead of discriminating people by the mere date they are born.

First, you are the one who brought up happiness. I did not mention happiness at all....you attributed it to me but if you look back I said no such thing until you brought it up. Second, it is not discrimination to cite scientific facts....It is a fact that children's brains are not fully developed until their early 20's. But for arguments sake....we can even make that 10 years sooner since you appear to be having a melt down. It doesn't matter...because only an idiot could think that a child's brain is the same as an adults or someone making a statement of fact is being ageist.

http://www.academic.marist.edu/mwwatch/ ... ience1.htm

http://www.examiner.com/article/a-child ... -by-age-25

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue ... nt/how.cfm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =124119468

artisticsolution wrote:VOT:Not always. For instance, Japanese samurai who commit suicide may reason that they are failures and not worthy of society's demand for success, and should therefore be disposed of. I think this is perfectly rational thinking, it's just ethically and morally wrong,

artisticsolution wrote:AS: I don't consider this rational thinking. How can something be rational and be wrong in any sense?

It's called idealism. It's the undercurrent that drives people to do good. If you had actually answered my example with the Kristallnacht and not ignored it you have a fine example of idealism that can get people killed for something which seems to be such a little worthless thing but which still can be such an important thing to do. In other words, rationality does not have anything to do with what's morally right unless you happen to believe that rationality is the proper moral, but that doesn't stop other people from having other opinions on moral.

artisticsolution wrote:I am not saying that samurai aren't technically skilled and intelligent. I am simply saying that they are not the epitome of perfect mental health.

I was never suggesting anything else either. From what I know they sound like a bunch that would often run into madness, but they were far from irrational. It's just that you don't share the same rationale, and for that the most hardcore samurais probably would've called you a coward (indicating differences in emotions between you two... something which you still fail to recognize, that people simply sometimes have different emotions and that those emotions doesn't make anything more or less rational).

artisticsolution wrote:First, you are the one who brought up happiness. I did not mention happiness at all....you attributed it to me but if you look back I said no such thing until you brought it up

And I asked you if you could separate health from happiness (and you decided to go onto talking about happiness when you saw I'd brought it up).

artisticsolution wrote:Second, it is not discrimination to cite scientific facts....It is a fact that children's brains are not fully developed until their early 20's. But for arguments sake....we can even make that 10 years sooner since you appear to be having a melt down. It doesn't matter...because only an idiot could think that a child's brain is the same as an adults or someone making a statement of fact is being ageist.

http://www.academic.marist.edu/mwwatch/ ... ience1.htm

http://www.examiner.com/article/a-child ... -by-age-25

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue ... nt/how.cfm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =124119468

I wasn't suggesting they were the same but that just because two people have differences, as you should already know by now that we've discussed discrimination for so long, doesn't make you compelled to separate them. What tasks are you demanding of children in this context that they cannot possibly do?

artisticsolution wrote:AS: You are right, but I also believe that some arguments about which is more "optimal" are more reasonable and rational than others. For example, the arguments that racism is illogical, unreasonable, and irrational are stronger than the arguments that racism is an optimal and desirable way of thinking, simply for the fact that most racists can't really say why they hate another human being based on aesthetics...only that they do.

Your rational defines what is rational? To the rest I just have to ask you... again, since you ignored me last time... whether you've actually ever seen a discussion with a racist or been part of one because I hardly doubt it, and I think you are presuming on their behalf that they cannot answer you or that they are gonna answer you with saying it's purely their skin. Obviously that's not a good argument and I find it very unlikely they would try saying that or that it is what they even think.

artisticsolution wrote:AS: I do believe most of the world has one type of mental illness or another.

If I am love-sick or get hurt emotionally or feel a strong need to do something, a compulsion, like cleaning my entire house. I'm not mentally ill, for the last time, it has nothing to do with mental illness. It's just what it means to live, sometimes things happens, sometimes you scratch your knee, you're not physically sick because you scratch your knee, and in the same way to have something imperfect (as you seem to assume, please tell me if this is not so) about a mind is not a case of illness, it's just how things always are and likely always will be. Now to counter the pains we might feel in and from the mind is closer to ergonomics than it is to neuropsychiatrics.

artisticsolution wrote:Whether it be a mild case of OCD or severe Psychosis or what have you, I don't think we can say most people have perfect mental health. However, I do think great strides are being made to understand the brain and how it works, and just like physical health, I think there can be future cures for mental health that are not limited to psychology. If this is case, perhaps more people will be able to enjoy better mental health....just like they do better physical health today than years ago.

I would never touch a cure you had found for any disease what so ever, because you don't seem to give a damn about your patients and their opinions on the matter, including whether they actually are mentally ill or not.

VOT:If I am love-sick or get hurt emotionally or feel a strong need to do something, a compulsion, like cleaning my entire house. I'm not mentally ill, for the last time, it has nothing to do with mental illness.

AS:I did not say that it did. Day to day life is going to happen, of course. But if one has a compulsion (like cleaning ones house) over and over and over, and it gets in the way of you living your life (or allowing others to live theirs...such in the case of racists or extreme control freaks/tyrants) then I would say that counts as a mental illness. You want the term mental illness to be absolute. You want it to mean whatever it is you want it to mean. You are the one who does a great disservice to those who may not have a severe mental illness but have a mental illness none the less. Mental illness is mental illness. It is characterized by irrational behavior that harms oneself or others.

What I am proposing is that someday science may find a cure for certain if not all mental illnesses. What is so terrible about that? You sound like one of those jerks in the past who opposed pain relief during childbirth arguing that 'God intended women to suffer and who are we to go against God.' I am saying...if there was a method...perhaps fighting diseases though dna testing and repairing....or some other method...perhaps a hormone replacement...something that would ease or eliminate suffering...why on earth would you not take it? You would take pain medication for a headache...right? If you lost a leg, you would allow science to reattach it....right? Well then, why would you not allow science to make it so you could think more rationally? It seems absurd to me that you would not want such treatment available to those who suffer.

VOT:It's just what it means to live, sometimes things happens, sometimes you scratch your knee, you're not physically sick because you scratch your knee, and in the same way to have something imperfect (as you seem to assume, please tell me if this is not so) about a mind is not a case of illness, it's just how things always are and likely always will be. Now to counter the pains we might feel in and from the mind is closer to ergonomics than it is to neuropsychiatrics.

AS:What I am proposing is not about imperfection. I am not that shallow. Quirks are adorable...I love overweight people...I dig different color skin...please...let's get past that already. I am not hung up on the aesthetic and believe the aesthetic is merely a form of entertainment. It is not the be all and end all of life.

What I am suggesting is that we just imagine (no harm in that is there?) a world where we can not only ease physical suffering but mental as well. I have been thinking about things like this all my life. Just asking questions that seem overwhelmingly complex (how to achieve world peace, for example) and then contemplating possible solutions in the present and/or future that would solve such problems. Part of my imagining is to ponder what makes life unpeaceful...and I had come to the conclusion alot of suffering is caused by man against man...and why? And I thought...part of the reason is because we want to punish...but why? Why do we want to punish when we would not want to be punished. It all seemed so irrational to me. Not to say some forms of punishment might be necessary...only to say I can imagine a world where punishment would never be needed again. It just seemed to me we need to get at the root problem of all punishment...be it deserved or undeserved (I happen to think undeserved punishment is more common...and thus repeats in forms of revenge causing a never ending cycle), we would need to fix not only the criminal thought...but also the punishment thought. Because I wholeheartedly believe that even if we fixed criminal behavior human nature still wants to punish. Irrational thoughts in our heads....punish for every least little thing even punishment for things that are beyond our control...like the color of our skin.

Anyway, I like to day dream...what is wrong with that....so when I say I think being irrational is a form a mental illness...I hope you can see my line of thought now. And I hope you would not punish me for simply thinking in a fictional way for the sheer enjoyment of it. I have come to the conclusion that there are varying forms of mental illness in the world and most if not all have one form or another...and it is why our world is in turmoil. And if there is ever a cure...or if you want to call it "world peace" then someone has to first dream of a way it could be possible without losing the essence of who we are.

For arguments sake I am refusing to believe that the true nature of man is evil and instead arguing that the true nature of man is social and good but that it is an impossibility to be the true essence of what we are (socially caring people) at the current time because of our disease. It is no different from the guy who created star trek....he too had to look into the future and find possible solutions to problems. Dare to dream...eh?

I would never touch a cure you had found for any disease what so ever, because you don't seem to give a damn about your patients and their opinions on the matter, including whether they actually are mentally ill or not.

[/quote]

Not true...it's just that you have probably never met someone who cares not only about the immediate problem but also about the root cause so that relief can come to the many and not only the few. And trust me...I would not be the one to find a cure...only that I could probably diagnose the problem better than most.

artisticsolution wrote:only that I could probably diagnose the problem better than most.

You mean you could pick and choose who are the problems of the world and who should be changed? This is so far remote from my thinking I'll just have to settle for saying there is no way on any mile I could reconcile with this train of thought. I breaks so many principles I have about how one should treat other human beings that there really isn't a way I can bridge anything here.

artisticsolution wrote:Anyway, I like to day dream...what is wrong with that....so when I say I think being irrational is a form a mental illness...I hope you can see my line of thought now. And I hope you would not punish me for simply thinking in a fictional way for the sheer enjoyment of it. I have come to the conclusion that there are varying forms of mental illness in the world and most if not all have one form or another...and it is why our world is in turmoil. And if there is ever a cure...or if you want to call it "world peace" then someone has to first dream of a way it could be possible without losing the essence of who we are.

For arguments sake I am refusing to believe that the true nature of man is evil and instead arguing that the true nature of man is social and good but that it is an impossibility to be the true essence of what we are (socially caring people) at the current time because of our disease. It is no different from the guy who created star trek....he too had to look into the future and find possible solutions to problems. Dare to dream...eh?

If you had said in the beginning that you were just having a crazy imagination I would never had taken any of this seriously. Should I take it seriously?