Philosophy Now Forum

artisticsolution wrote: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 a lot 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 behaviour 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.

There is harm in imagining if you make it count for anything. It's like sitting day or night hating somebody only to cultivate in yourself violence. If you spent time cultivating this train of thought you would be cultivating a will to commit violence against the freedom of other individuals, because you, likely, end up trivializing the opinions those individuals have of themselves and which may be in opposition to your own thoughts about how they should be like. So I'd suggest you stop thinking in this manner or acknowledge the inherent rights of other individuals to be treated with respect (not called "mentally ill" for one when their associations and the common set of associations to what is mental illness is something very different and what you are trying to say only confuses people and won't make any benefit to anyone) and their inherent rights to identities and make their own choices.

artisticsolution wrote: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.

Then why is it so important to name people mentally ill just because they happen to have a different set of thoughts than you that you don't like? Why can't you just let them live with their imperfection of not being rational always and free them from naming like "mentally ill"? Why do they have to be "mentally ill" just because they are to you unfavourably different in thought (or why does all of us, since you want to expand the term, have to be mentally ill because we are imperfect in thought by your measures)?

artisticsolution wrote: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?

Nothing, if you actually have mental illness!

artisticsolution wrote: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?

I may want to take it or I may not. It depends upon whether it's the kind of thing that resembles a drug: meaning it only makes you stupid, dependent and helpless, or whether it is a permanent boost to the abilities necessary to live a long and happy life. I may also not want to take it if it made me indifferent by destroying my ability to feel empathy for those who does not have the chance to take it. So, things are never as easy as they seem.

artisticsolution wrote:You would take pain medication for a headache...right?

No, not really. I usually drink water and try to calm my head. It's more effective I reckon.

artisticsolution wrote: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?

Because rationality is a PERSPECTIVE god dammit and not a universal truth you can just force others to accept! Why on Earth would I want the Doctor to force upon me his own perspective making me only think like him?

artisticsolution wrote:It seems absurd to me that you would not want such treatment available to those who suffer.

It's not a treatment it's brain-washing in a pill! Suffering is not the worst thing which could happen to you!

I like the idea of being able to transfer knowledge between people more effectively, but it should have the limits necessary for people to feel safe and not robbed of things critically important to them. It's effectively murder to wipe out a person's rationale to replace it with your own. And I'm not talking about persuasion, which is adding of knowledge causing rearrangement, I'm talking about the effective suppression of some critical sense of identity in favour of replacements.

artisticsolution wrote:AS:I did not say that it did.

You said irrationality was mental illness, and irrationality is merely an imperfection. Love-sickness is irrational, it's irrational to get emotionally hurt, and a compulsion is irrational because your house can gather dust and it may never have any importance what so ever on your life. All these things are imperfections. So I conclude: you think that because something is not perfectly rational (in accordance with your understanding of rational) they are "mentally ill".

artisticsolution wrote: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.

That counts as a bad attitude. Mania is mental illness, but only if you have no rational for doing so yourself. What might be irrational to me, like cleaning the house 3 times a week, might be perfectly rational to my aunt, which likes cleaning, likes having it clean about them, and therefore like doing the cleaning and feel a compulsion to never miss the opportunity that each week presents.

artisticsolution wrote:You want the term mental illness to be absolute.

Absolutely.

artisticsolution wrote:You want it to mean whatever it is you want it to mean.

Yes, because I want it to mean what it does mean and nothing else, normal human beings should not be treated like as if they were mentally ill people. I think here's the place for quoting my previous self:

Mental illnesses are characterized by strict scientific criteria, and concerns not simple things like lack of knowledge or emotional preferences and the likes but more a person's basic abilities necessary to sustain a relationship with the world around them. You can be a racist and perfectly well sustain such a relationship. Cases where you cannot sustain such a relationship is when you perceive physical objects that do not exist or hear sounds that do not exist but you think exist (then the relationship between the sight and the sound and the thinking is the problem, but not necessarily just that you see something which isn't there or hear sounds which doesn't exist, you must also believe them for there to be mental illness. If you just hear the sound or see the object which doesn't exist but don't believe them you are suffering from non-mental perception illnesses, in the same category as "colour blindness").

artisticsolution wrote: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.

No it is not, it has no relationship with rationality. See above quote. It is irrational to charge into a fight to save your friend from being killed when you harm the people who tries to harm your friend. It's not mental illness for that sake.

tbieter wrote:"What started out as a joke ended up with a reporter being fired at KSTP-TV.

Mark Saxenmeyer wanted to do story about a gay Minneapolis couple who attended a White House Easter egg hunt but ended up handing it off to his co-worker Katherine Johnson. While she was in the process of writing the piece, Saxenmeyer added a few things to her script to make her laugh.

"They were based on a conversation she and I had prior about sensitivity issues," said Saxenmeyer, who is gay. "As a gay person, it's sometimes easier to use humor to help people feel more comfortable with gay people or just gay things. She and I were just having a conversation about questions she might ask when she did the story. It was just a casual conversation, and then we began joking about it."

All the jokes were deleted, except for one of Saxenmeyer's lines -- "big HOMO dads" -- which made it into the story that was posted on the station's website March 30.

Saxenmeyer said the piece was up for less than five minutes before the line was taken out, but by then, a reader had already questioned the inappropriate reference to the couple. This editor's note was added: "Earlier today comments were published erroneously regarding this story. KSTP does not condone the comments. Action is being taken to ensure that this does not happen again."

On Wednesday, April 3, Saxenmeyer was fired from KSTP.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... s-gay-joke

Was he fired because a man made a joke about gays, or because he was gay, being a convenient excuse for such a decision. I mean, where I'm from, it's frowned upon for whites to use the word "n*****," but blacks are not, double standards, yes, but I understand the difference. In the second case it's sarcasm referencing the failing of some whites as to condescension based upon superficial differences, so that in some respects it could be seen as reverse racism, though it's tolerated due to history. I do not see any difference here, a gay made a joke about gays, thus himself, while obviously it's a comment on the narrow point of view of some straights. I see that now the focus should be on the company that owns the news station.

I don't see why the company should be seen in error if it doesn't like to encourage or highlight homosexuality. Many people would not see that as a narrow option. Homosexuality remains offensive to many and that won't change, no matter how much it becomes legitimised.

Bernard wrote:I don't see why the company should be seen in error if it doesn't like to encourage or highlight homosexuality. Many people would not see that as a narrow option. Homosexuality remains offensive to many and that won't change, no matter how much it becomes legitimised.

Yes, I know Bernard, some people aren't happy enough just seeing to their own version of life, and see fit to also try and manage someone else's version, but this is a falsehood, as there is no man that knows of the absolutely universal understanding of what human life is supposed to be. It has largely been compared to the construct of the majority, as if necessarily indicative. But when one considers the multitudes of constituents (beliefs/actions) that go into any particular life, and compares them to a consensus one can easily find themselves in the minority as to that particular belief/action, such that they'd be the first to scream how unfair it is to be ostracized, or otherwise, for believing/doing such.

In other words, the odds are that everyone has at least one belief/activity that is held in the minority, and would not want to be held accountable for that difference of choice, in the face of the majority, as the majority is not necessarily indicative of normal/right or otherwise proper. Actually I can see circumstance where it would be detrimental to the populace as a whole, for such differences to be shunned.

It is not for me to judge my fellow man, as I do not expect my fellow man to judge me. There is no greater foe, innocent of judging another, as one in defense, of being judged by another.

The Voice of Time wrote:

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.

DOn't put words in my mouth...you are really bad judging character. What I mean I am not shallowly fooled by aesthetics. I don't hide behind or justify my personal beliefs in some absolute black and white scenario to suit my needs. Just keep telling yourself that you helped that girl out when we both know there is no way you could know for sure if you did a greater damage to her mental health. You have no idea why lies beneath another humans mind. You took advantage of someone less fortunate.

Go ahead...keep convincing yourself you are good...it's what most shallow people do.

The Voice of Time wrote:
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?

If you didn't know for sure...then you should not have attacked my character. You had no idea why I said the things I said. Shoot first ask questions later....right?

This is what I am talking about...it is all the aesthetic appeal of basing an argument on appearences rather than asking questions. How can you be sure of anything when you can't even dig a little deeper in order to understand before you tell me what I am thinking.

Can you really be sure you helped that girl out vs. your actions caused her other personalities to shut down in fear...what if one of them feared men or what if one of them was a child...or a heterosexual boy....my point is...you have no idea...you only foolishly aesthetically selfishly think you do.

Aesthetics don't fool me...I see right through them...I know them for what they are.

The Voice of Time wrote:
There is harm in imagining if you make it count for anything. It's like sitting day or night hating somebody only to cultivate in yourself violence. If you spent time cultivating this train of thought you would be cultivating a will to commit violence against the freedom of other individuals, because you, likely, end up trivializing the opinions those individuals have of themselves and which may be in opposition to your own thoughts about how they should be like. So I'd suggest you stop thinking in this manner or acknowledge the inherent rights of other individuals to be treated with respect (not called "mentally ill" for one when their associations and the common set of associations to what is mental illness is something very different and what you are trying to say only confuses people and won't make any benefit to anyone) and their inherent rights to identities and make their own choices.

Go back and show me where I advocate taking away another's freedom troll.

artisticsolution wrote:Just keep telling yourself that you helped that girl out

I don't think I ever thought that. She wanted to have sex with me, I wanted to have sex with her, we had sex... what's there to think about?

artisticsolution wrote:when we both know there is no way you could know for sure if you did a greater damage to her mental health.

She was not a vegetable, before you rob her of her abilities to make own choices! She was a fully functional human being in most essential ways. She was an integrated person to society, she had a normalized life with a job and an education ahead of her.

artisticsolution wrote:You have no idea why lies beneath another humans mind. You took advantage of someone less fortunate.

I took advantage of somebody who was already radiating sexlust, nothing more and nothing less.

artisticsolution wrote:Go ahead...keep convincing yourself you are good...it's what most shallow people do.

It was not good or wrong it was a match.

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

The Voice of Time wrote:You mean you could pick and choose who are the problems of the world and who should be changed?

artisticsolution wrote:Don't put words in my mouth...you are really bad judging character. What I mean I am not shallowly fooled by aesthetics. I don't hide behind or justify my personal beliefs in some absolute black and white scenario to suit my needs.

You said it in the first quote there. What I said only unveils what lies behind the words you've already said, I don't need to put words in your mouth, you've already said them, I'm just needed to decode them.

The Voice of Time wrote:
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?

artisticsolution wrote:If you didn't know for sure...then you should not have attacked my character. You had no idea why I said the things I said. Shoot first ask questions later....right?

Well in this case looking like Taliban with an AK47 pointed at me I was a bit in that mood yes, I was not stopping to ask if there was a carnival going on. That is, I'm not used to thinking that the forum is anything else than a battlefield, unless clear signs signify anything else.

artisticsolution wrote:This is what I am talking about...it is all the aesthetic appeal of basing an argument on appearances rather than asking questions. How can you be sure of anything when you can't even dig a little deeper in order to understand before you tell me what I am thinking.

I'm not sure how much wrong I actually did in my assumptions. Because they often to me seem natural consequences of following your thought-train, and where I've given you options I've not done anything wrong either, it's exploring if anything else. The only mistake I seem to have really made is how serious you are taking what you yourself say, but that unnecessary withholding of information from your side.

artisticsolution wrote:Can you really be sure you helped that girl out

I was not trying to help her out. I was trying to fuck her so she'd enjoy our time together.

artisticsolution wrote: vs. your actions caused her other personalities to shut down in fear

As far as I know it doesn't work like that. Her other personalities rarely surface, only when bad things happen or out of her own will. They don't play any significant role in her everyday-life. And even if they did you can't chastise a person for that sake.

artisticsolution wrote:...what if one of them feared men or what if one of them was a child...or a heterosexual boy

There was both several heterosexual men and a child inside there. I dunno about fear of men, not unlikely though. Separate memory though, she has to tell them before they know.

artisticsolution wrote:....my point is...you have no idea...you only foolishly aesthetically selfishly think you do.

This is not a sentence which has meaning to my mind. What exactly is "aesthetically thinking"? Surely it doesn't relate to aesthetics which is the philosophy of beauty and taste?

artisticsolution wrote:Aesthetics don't fool me...I see right through them...I know them for what they are.

I don't know what you are talking about or to whom so I can't comment this one.

artisticsolution wrote:Go back and show me where I advocate taking away another's freedom troll.

You advocate it by belittling the value of their own identities and choices first through saying you want to make them have thoughts that you call rational (and which I explained to you is just a perspective, so effectively you want to put your perspective inside their heads), and second by saying people are mentally ill, indicating with it that they carry a sickness which must be treated (this is not my thought, that's what real mental illnesses are like).

It's about how you treat the value of other people different than you (in your imagination, as I've not forgotten it wasn't too serious).

The Voice of Time wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Go back and show me where I advocate taking away another's freedom troll.

You advocate it by belittling the value of their own identities and choices first through saying you want to make them have thoughts that you call rational (and which I explained to you is just a perspective, so effectively you want to put your perspective inside their heads), and second by saying people are mentally ill, indicating with it that they carry a sickness which must be treated (this is not my thought, that's what real mental illnesses are like).

It's about how you treat the value of other people different than you (in your imagination, as I've not forgotten it wasn't too serious).

No, that is your delusional interpretation of what I have said. Now show me a direct quote of mine that says those exact words.

You act as if there is a cure for mental illness out there somewhere and I advocate forcing it on all. There is no such thing and even if there was I would no more make someone take the cure than I would make them take a pill to save their life. If they don't want to take a future cure for human irrational thought..then so be it...suffer in silence then. However, it has been my observation that people don't like to suffer....and will do anything to relieve symptoms of suffering...i.e I believe most will take the cure.

I treat people at least better than you, as I would not take advantage of someone while fooling myself I was being kind through pity. This is what I mean by I can diagnose problems better than most. My wants and desires would not take precedence over my actions if it meant I might possibly cause harm to another individual. What's more is I would not have the audacity to aesthetically (shallowly) change the reality of what I did by spinning some sort of sick justification that I was actually being the hero...coming to the poor horny mentally ill girl's rescue.

Strip away the facade and face yourself in the mirror...but most of all don't try to read your negativity into my benign and kind words for humanity...you are way out of your league.