nihilism

[Alexis Jacobi]

In times of difficulties, many do turn to religious beliefs in God as a straw to cling to. However, it does not work for all, especially if one is within religious circles which try to impose strict rules and beliefs, which seem to prevent philosophical awareness and questioning. There are probably different dispositions, including people who would rather be told what to think rather than thinking for themselves.

The first sentence interests me. Today, in America (I am uncertain about Europe), there seems to be a wide revival. Take the many conversions to Catholicism for an example (JD Vance, Candace Owens). It could be seen as a cowardly “taking refuge” except that they do not describe it in those terms.

I am just now reading “Live Not By Lies” (Rod Dreher) and more predominantly he speaks of Christian belief as a bulwark against distorted, communistic “wokism”. The Christian view of the sacred individual (a part of God) is a profound and consequential metaphysical tenet. Not escapist fantasy. Nihilism results when a range of metaphysical truths can no longer be believed.

The issue of conformist circles and ideological coercion is important. Again, the experiences of those under Soviet ideological and political dictatorship, and now certainly the Chinese version — and what is now taking form in the US with Democrat Progessivism, — requires a metaphysical platform to oppose it. When people in metaphysical disorientation seek •religion• they can find analogues to modern distortions, true, but they can also find transcendent, eternal truths.

From the Wilhelm-Baynes translation of the I-Ching, the hexagram The Well:

THE WELL. The town may be changed,
But the well cannot be changed.
It neither decreases nor increases.
They come and go and draw from the well.
If one gets down almost to the water
And the rope does not go all the way,
Or the jug breaks, it brings misfortune.

In ancient China the capital cities were sometimes moved, partly for the sake of more favorable location, partly because of a change in dynasties. The style of architecture changed in the course of centuries, but the shape of the well has remained the same from ancient times to this day. Thus the well is the symbol of that social structure which, evolved by mankind in meeting its most primitive needs, is independent of all political forms. Political structures change, as do nations, but the life of man with its needs remains eternally the same—this cannot be changed. Life is also inexhaustible. It grows neither less nor more; it exists for one and for all. The generations come and go, and all enjoy life in its inexhaustible abundance.

However, there are two prerequisites for a satisfactory political or social organization of mankind. We must go down to the very foundations of life. For any merely superficial ordering of life that leaves its deepest needs unsatisfied is as ineffectual as if no attempt at order had ever been made. Carelessness—by which the jug is broken—is also disastrous. If for instance the military defense of a state is carried to such excess that it provokes wars by which the power of the state is annihilated, this is a breaking of the jug.

This hexagram applies also to the individual. However men may differ in disposition and in education, the foundations of human nature are the same in everyone. And every human being can draw in the course of his education from the inexhaustible wellspring of the divine in man’s nature. But here likewise two dangers threaten: a man may fail in his education to penetrate to the real roots of humanity and remain fixed in convention—a partial education of this sort is as bad as none—or he may suddenly collapse and neglect his self–development.

Unquestionably, we are all moderns. We have been extruded on the far side of conventional religion and religiousness. Yet all the content, all allusion, is still as much there as it ever was.

Therefore it all depends on how far down into “the well” one is capable of going.

[Immanuel Can]

I definitely agree that dishonest refuge in belief in God can result in mental disorder.

It can. Depending on what "god" is in view, and what sort of "dishonest" strategy one is employing. I don't think that's controversial. But Nihilism can certainly do the same. And not every commitment to Nihilism is "honest" either.

The problem is the nature of the psychology in question, I think. Any kind of a "dishonest" belief, one maintained by refusal to think, eventually comes into a dissonant relationship with reality. And inevitably, that produces maladjustments, failures to face the truth, and neuroses of all kinds. However, I have not observed that this is in any way limited to strictly religious beliefs. Politically, both Communism and Fascism produced similar manias and loss of grip on reality. The ideological derangement of today's postmodern Left is certainly of this order, as well...as is not hard to document. In places like Haiti or central Africa, it's various occult practices that seem to be the chief producer of derangement. And recently, the lifestyles of the Hollywood elite have come under fresh scrutiny for particularly demented practices -- and almost none of them have any religious commitments at all.

So I dare to say that it's an inauthentic relationship to truth, and an irrational commitment to any ideology, that produces that sort of "mental disorder."

[Gary Childress]

Mental disorders may just be freaks of nature that strike some people for little known reason and not others for the same reason. However, there is often the tendency to blame the victim, assume that the victim did something impious to deserve the affliction. That may or may not be true. I've had psychosis many times and I am not aware that people who have done greater harm than I have or who are more dishonest than I am have had psychosis. Therefore, it is not clear to me what the cause(s) of psychosis is and if it is any different than the causes of other afflictions such as the common cold.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Wise to pay attention to those periods when mass social psychosis became manifest. I have referenced two essays by Jung well worth reading. “Woton” (pre National Socialism) and “After the Catastrophe” (post analysis) where he delves, quite personally, into the manifestation of social-political sickness and madness that swept Europe.

My analysis is that it is due (largely) to metaphysical ungrounding.

For this reason metaphysical regrounding is my primary interest.

[Belinda]

I definitely agree that dishonest refuge in belief in God can result in mental disorder.

It can. Depending on what "god" is in view, and what sort of "dishonest" strategy one is employing. I don't think that's controversial. But Nihilism can certainly do the same. And not every commitment to Nihilism is "honest" either.

The problem is the nature of the psychology in question, I think. Any kind of a "dishonest" belief, one maintained by refusal to think, eventually comes into a dissonant relationship with reality. And inevitably, that produces maladjustments, failures to face the truth, and neuroses of all kinds. However, I have not observed that this is in any way limited to strictly religious beliefs. Politically, both Communism and Fascism produced similar manias and loss of grip on reality. The ideological derangement of today's postmodern Left is certainly of this order, as well...as is not hard to document. In places like Haiti or central Africa, it's various occult practices that seem to be the chief producer of derangement. And recently, the lifestyles of the Hollywood elite have come under fresh scrutiny for particularly demented practices -- and almost none of them have any religious commitments at all.

So I dare to say that it's an inauthentic relationship to truth, and an irrational commitment to any ideology, that produces that sort of "mental disorder."

God of the Old Testament is a far more powerful idea and socially necessary idea than magic, superstition, and false idols such as Zionism, Aryanism (Hitler), and the Communist State.

Today we face terrible futures of climate collapse, pandemics, and lethal weapons. God of the OT can't rescue us, we alone must rescue ourselves if we can. Mental illness results from denying one's existential responsibility

[Immanuel Can]

God of the Old Testament...

...is the God of the New Testament.

Today we face terrible futures of climate collapse, pandemics, and lethal weapons. God of the OT can't rescue us, we alone must rescue ourselves if we can. Mental illness results from denying one's existential responsibility.

So you call God "the Almighty," and then assert that He's not "mighty" enough to rescue us, but that "we alone must rescue ourselves"?

Good luck with that. We are not going to "rescue ourselves." We are small, weak and perishing creatures, all of us. The best of us has 70 or 80 years of life in one physical location at a time, and only two small hands and two small feet to work with. And ironically, the problem is us. We have made the very problem you identify...the climate issues, the pandemics, the lethal weapons...so looking to us to solve the problems we are creating at the same time is about as irrational and unlikely a solution as one can possibly devise, is it not?

But what is an "existential responsibility"? If there were no God, we could have no "responsibilities" either. To whom would we have them? We can't owe them to each other, since every person's will is the moral equivalent of everybody else's...who is to say your will or mine deserves to be honoured more than the next guy's? And if it were to suit one person to be nice and helpful to others, what standard in "existentialism" is there to insist that the guy down the street, who prefers to steal, pillage, burn and loot is behaving in a way he's "responsible" not to?

Meanwhile, I wonder what your answer to my earlier question is: who bears "responsibility" for the climate? Is it all animals that bear that responsibility? Or is it just the human 'animal'? If it's just us, then why do we bear a "responsibility" that no other animal does?

[Immanuel Can]

Mental disorders may just be freaks of nature that strike some people for little known reason and not others for the same reason.

Some might be. Some are self-caused. The man who is deranged by alcohol or fentanyl has done it to himself. Mentally ill, he may genuinely be; but he's got nobody to blame for it but himself.

However, there is often the tendency to blame the victim, assume that the victim did something impious to deserve the affliction.

Maybe that's because so many mental illnesses ARE self-caused. Not all, of course, but a great many are. Some are caused by chemicals, some by choices, some by deranged ideologies...so naturally, people may first assume that's the sort of thing they're seeing. And maybe they're wrong about that: but they'd be just as off-the-mark to assume that all mental diseases were uncaused...and they have to assume something.

At least in the cases of self-induced mental illness, a curative is possible. So maybe the kinder assumption is that the illness is curable.

Therefore, it is not clear to me what the cause(s) of psychosis is and if it is any different than the causes of other afflictions such as the common cold.

Colds are caused by viruses. What "virus" causes mental illness? It seems to me that neither in the cases where mental illnesses are not the fault of the sufferer, nor in the cases in which they are, is a "common cold" any good as an analogy.

[Fairy]

But what is an "existential responsibility"? If there were no God, we could have no "responsibilities" either.

The thought: ''if there were no God'' is an assumption that there is a God that is ''no God''. That logic can be applied to any known concept, like the known concept that is ''Immanuel Can'' .. if there was no ''IC'' which assumes there is an IC who is NOT ....then who could possibly take responsibility? It cannot be God, because how would God know that he exists and know it was himself who is taking responsibility? And if it was God who was taking responsibility, then why would God need anyone else to do what he is already doing. No need for the ''We''

This is all knowledge, it's all thought, concepts known.

'Thoughts' are mental constructions.

Mental constructions appear as if there is a secondary place upon what is already the case (first order) without concept known.
The secondary place is concept of ego, it is a false identification with the thought. As Descartes put it: ''I think therefore I Am''


Allowing, being aware, of the thinker of thought, known as the (I AM) which implies two..an I - and an Am - for the I to be...is to critically think about the concept known as 'responsibility'. It is noticed that there is no 'responsibility' a concept known, without the concept being known. And without the concept being known; there is no concept there in the first place to be known.

Therefore, the thought known as ''Existential responsibility'' is the philosophical belief that we are each responsible for creating purpose or meaning in our own ''I AM'' lives. No need for the God


I guess that makes ''NO ONE'' responsible, except for the 'thought' the 'belief' the concept known, in the first order, and cannot be secondary order, since that which is known once, known to be born of mind, cannot possibly be twice born. As there is only one of you. And the secondary place would just be more of you, meaning every other one would also be you.

No thought believed, leaves nothing, no thing, not a thing. From belief to clarity.

[Gary Childress]

Mental disorders may just be freaks of nature that strike some people for little known reason and not others for the same reason.

Some might be. Some are self-caused. The man who is deranged by alcohol or fentanyl has done it to himself. Mentally ill, he may genuinely be; but he's got nobody to blame for it but himself.

However, there is often the tendency to blame the victim, assume that the victim did something impious to deserve the affliction.

Maybe that's because so many mental illnesses ARE self-caused. Not all, of course, but a great many are. Some are caused by chemicals, some by choices, some by deranged ideologies...so naturally, people may first assume that's the sort of thing they're seeing. And maybe they're wrong about that: but they'd be just as off-the-mark to assume that all mental diseases were uncaused...and they have to assume something.

At least in the cases of self-induced mental illness, a curative is possible. So maybe the kinder assumption is that the illness is curable.

Therefore, it is not clear to me what the cause(s) of psychosis is and if it is any different than the causes of other afflictions such as the common cold.

Colds are caused by viruses. What "virus" causes mental illness? It seems to me that neither in the cases where mental illnesses are not the fault of the sufferer, nor in the cases in which they are, is a "common cold" any good as an analogy.

Like I said, blaming the mentally ill for their illness is common.

Mental health disorders are caused by a combination of genetic, environmental, and social factors:
Genetics
Certain genes may increase the risk of developing a mental illness, and mental illness is more common in people with blood relatives who also have a mental illness.
Environmental factors
Exposure to toxins, head injury, poor nutrition, and environmental stressors before birth can increase the likelihood of developing a mental illness.
Social factors
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), such as abuse, trauma, or neglect, are a known risk factor for mental illness. Other social factors that can increase the risk of mental illness include poverty, disability, violence, and inequality.
Brain chemistry
Chemical imbalances or impaired neural networks in the brain can lead to depression and other emotional disorders.

[Immanuel Can]

Like I said, blaming the mentally ill for their illness is common.

And is sometimes correct.

The non-blameworthy cases do not mean there are no blameworthy cases.

Basic logic, mon ami.

[Gary Childress]

Like I said, blaming the mentally ill for their illness is common.

And is sometimes correct.

The non-blameworthy cases do not mean there are no blameworthy cases.

Basic logic, mon ami.

And some blameworthy cases doesn't mean they're all blameworthy either.

[Immanuel Can]

Like I said, blaming the mentally ill for their illness is common.

And is sometimes correct.

The non-blameworthy cases do not mean there are no blameworthy cases.

Basic logic, mon ami.

And some blameworthy cases doesn't mean they're all blameworthy either.

Find somebody who said they all were. Argue with him, instead.

[Gary Childress]

And is sometimes correct.

The non-blameworthy cases do not mean there are no blameworthy cases.

Basic logic, mon ami.

And some blameworthy cases doesn't mean they're all blameworthy either.

Find somebody who said they all were. Argue with him, instead.

Same to you.

[Immanuel Can]

And some blameworthy cases doesn't mean they're all blameworthy either.

Find somebody who said they all were. Argue with him, instead.

Same to you.

Your response makes no sense. There was nobody here that was alleging what you alleged they were alleging.

[Gary Childress]

Find somebody who said they all were. Argue with him, instead.

Same to you.

Your response makes no sense. There was nobody here that was alleging what you alleged they were alleging.

I've never met anyone who chose to be mentally ill. And not all people become mentally ill over the same choices. It's a crap shoot. If there's a God, then God rolls dice. There's no foundation to blame people for mental illness. We all do our best based on where we are in life and what we've been thrown into. The brain doesn't tell us, "hey, if you do that you'll get mental illness." We wake up one day and we're in a psychiatric hospital that we didn't know we were going to be in the day before.