Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:46 pm I've never met anyone who chose to be mentally ill.

Go down to your local homeless encampment. Find an alcoholic or a fentanyl user. And chances are, you'll have one.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:49 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:46 pm I've never met anyone who chose to be mentally ill.

Go down to your local homeless encampment. Find an alcoholic or a fentanyl user. And chances are, you'll have one.

Yes. And it's not their fault that alcohol or drugs have the appeal that they do, or that they chose to live a life where they would feel the need for them. People don't freely choose sickness.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 1:57 pm I expect an honest nihilist to make up his own mind as to how to live a good and a happy life. An honest nihilist has no recourse to God or nature to decide how he or she ought to act.

It wouldn't be an 'ought' whatever the nihilist decides.
But a nihilist could allow his or her own nature to guide the way he or she lives. Much as we can, if we have the means, choose what ice cream flavor to eat. How we choose which people hang out with comes from our preferences, which we could call our nature. Here this nature is not opposed to nurture or dasein. Whatever led to you liking tough guys or goths or high risk sports or quiet evenings we can call you current predelictions your nature. And this nature can lead you to make choices and how you live.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 5:49 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 1:57 pm I expect an honest nihilist to make up his own mind as to how to live a good and a happy life. An honest nihilist has no recourse to God or nature to decide how he or she ought to act.

It wouldn't be an 'ought' whatever the nihilist decides.

There are oughts that aren't moral oughts - practical oughts, in particular.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:49 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:46 pm I've never met anyone who chose to be mentally ill.

Go down to your local homeless encampment. Find an alcoholic or a fentanyl user. And chances are, you'll have one.

Yes. And it's not their fault that alcohol or drugs have the appeal that they do, or that they chose to live a life where they would feel the need for them. People don't freely choose sickness.

So your theory is that if something "has an appeal," then people are no longer responsible for what they do? The thieves, abusers, rage freaks, pedophiles, gamblers, drug addicts, rapists and everybody else who finds anything that "has an appeal" will be delighted with your theory.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 5:56 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 5:49 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 1:57 pm I expect an honest nihilist to make up his own mind as to how to live a good and a happy life. An honest nihilist has no recourse to God or nature to decide how he or she ought to act.

It wouldn't be an 'ought' whatever the nihilist decides.

There are oughts that aren't moral oughts - practical oughts, in particular.

A practical "ought" isn't the same as a moral "ought." And there's also a probability "ought" that's different from both of those. See PN Issue 99, "Thoughts on Oughts."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 6:16 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 5:56 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 5:49 pm It wouldn't be an 'ought' whatever the nihilist decides.

There are oughts that aren't moral oughts - practical oughts, in particular.

A practical "ought" isn't the same as a moral "ought."

Yes, that's what I said too

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 6:14 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:49 pm
Go down to your local homeless encampment. Find an alcoholic or a fentanyl user. And chances are, you'll have one.

Yes. And it's not their fault that alcohol or drugs have the appeal that they do, or that they chose to live a life where they would feel the need for them. People don't freely choose sickness.

So your theory is that if something "has an appeal," then people are no longer responsible for what they do? The thieves, abusers, rage freaks, pedophiles, gamblers, drug addicts, rapists and everybody else who finds anything that "has an appeal" will be delighted with your theory.

My theory is that God made a messed up world. Unless there is no God at all. Addiction is a physiological state. Some drugs, such as crack are said to be instantly addicting. I've had psychoses in which I was completely deluded and behaved in ways that I would not normally behave, just because I was deluded. Some people have a predisposition toward addictions and some don't. Often such traits are passed on genetically.

I'm not saying that the violent should be left to their own devices. Obviously, they need to be prevented from doing things that will make life intolerable for others. But they wouldn't be doing those things if there weren't incentives to do so. And if God created all that is, then God is the one who made those incentives. God is not good. God may not be evil, but God is not a good God either. If there is a God, then God just is.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 7:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 6:16 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 5:56 pm
There are oughts that aren't moral oughts - practical oughts, in particular.

A practical "ought" isn't the same as a moral "ought."

Yes, that's what I said too

Well, that's fine.

Then the conclusion would be that those "oughts" have nothing to do with what any Nihilist is obligated to do. A Nihilist isn't even particularly obligated to do what is either practical or probable...far less what is moral. So for a Nihilist, there's really no such thing as what he "ought" to do.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 7:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 6:14 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:55 pm

Yes. And it's not their fault that alcohol or drugs have the appeal that they do, or that they chose to live a life where they would feel the need for them. People don't freely choose sickness.

So your theory is that if something "has an appeal," then people are no longer responsible for what they do? The thieves, abusers, rage freaks, pedophiles, gamblers, drug addicts, rapists and everybody else who finds anything that "has an appeal" will be delighted with your theory.

My theory is that God made a messed up world.

How about a better theory? That God made a good world, and man messed it up?

I mean, you can hardly doubt that much -- and perhaps the majority -- of what goes on in this world involves choices made by human agents.

Addiction is a physiological state.

Some is. Some is not.

Additictions are actually usually composites of inclinations, decisions, and habituations, as well as physiology. A person who is, say, inclined to alcoholism, but who does not drink, will not become an alcoholic. A person who is susceptible to porn addiction, but refuses to view porn, will not become a porn addict. A person who is potentially a gambler, but who avoids gambling situations, will not become an addictive gambler.

Now, that's not to say there's no such thing as a person who is purely mentally ill from birth. But they are exceedingly rare, in fact. Almost always, mental illness is associated with other variables as well, such as a history of abuse or neglect. Abuse, neglect, drug abuse, etc. are products of human choice -- either that of the sufferer, or of the perpetrator, or both.

...they wouldn't be doing those things if there weren't incentives to do so.

Apply that to theft. There are always incentives to steal...it gives one things one cannot legitimately possess. That does not go one inch toward making theft excusable, though.

We always ought to take responsibility for the part that is ours, when it comes to our tragedies in life. If it's not all on us, often it is somewhat on us. None of us is pure as the driven snow. Even a person who has been, say, victimized by a vicious parent, though he cannot fix his past, is fully responsible for how he responds to that. For there are people who have suffered terrible things, and have chosen to respond well.

Even a person who has congenital mental illness has the choice to make his own lot in life better or worse. Choice is always present, whether we want it or not, as is our responsibility for what we do with our options. Those who merely sit around and "blame God" are doomed to find out eventually just how wrong they were when they insisted they had no choice but to be who they were.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 8:13 pm Those who merely sit around and "blame God" are doomed to find out eventually just how wrong they were when they insisted they had no choice but to be who they were.

Someone has to hold God accountable for the mess he created. If you don't like it, then too bad. Why do you care how others relate to God?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:46 pmI've never met anyone who chose to be mentally ill.

Let’s try something. We all agree, I suppose, that the manifestation of National Socialism and Hitler had much to do with political and social derangement. Or is my view too colored by the Jungian perspective?

If a nation goes crazy — if a leading elite steers the society to political madness — to whom shall we assign responsibility?

As is always the case with you, Gary, I recognize you are steering this conversation toward an examination of your own subjective problems, but the issue really does seem to be: that even your illness is symptomatic of social and cultural sickness. How could this not be so to some degree (and degree is the question)?

The Christian idea of core sickness is in my view fundamentally sound. It is inherited sickness that requires a holy cure (spiritual intervention). Certainly those of us who are critics of the modern cultural manifestations of sickness have our theory of why this sickness manifests (my reference is classical Catholic metaphysical doctrine). Our choices have very much to do with our own sickness. And how much more so is this for the culture.

I am not implying that you are responsible for your mental health issues, yet it is not possible, when social sicknesses are examined, to notice, or suspect, a link to larger, social and cultural maladies.

Nihilism is, in my view, a spiritual disease. How did it come about? The route can be traced. There could as well likely be a route out of it. And choice enters in.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 8:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 8:13 pm Those who merely sit around and "blame God" are doomed to find out eventually just how wrong they were when they insisted they had no choice but to be who they were.

Someone has to hold God accountable for the mess he created. If you don't like it, then too bad. Why do you care how others relate to God?

Simple. Those who make themselves enemies of God end up alienated from God. And I wouldn't want that for anybody. So basic decency compels me to speak in defense of God's rightness, especially when people slander Him.

So to turn the responsibility around, who will hold you accountable for the mess you've created? And unless you're a much more perfect specimen than me, or than any other men, you will have made many of them. So when will you take responsibility for your role in the disaster you call your life?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 5:56 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 5:49 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 1:57 pm I expect an honest nihilist to make up his own mind as to how to live a good and a happy life. An honest nihilist has no recourse to God or nature to decide how he or she ought to act.

It wouldn't be an 'ought' whatever the nihilist decides.

There are oughts that aren't moral oughts - practical oughts, in particular.

To feel a clear conscience is practical .

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 5:49 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 1:57 pm I expect an honest nihilist to make up his own mind as to how to live a good and a happy life. An honest nihilist has no recourse to God or nature to decide how he or she ought to act.

It wouldn't be an 'ought' whatever the nihilist decides.
But a nihilist could allow his or her own nature to guide the way he or she lives. Much as we can, if we have the means, choose what ice cream flavor to eat. How we choose which people hang out with comes from our preferences, which we could call our nature. Here this nature is not opposed to nurture or dasein. Whatever led to you liking tough guys or goths or high risk sports or quiet evenings we can call you current predelictions your nature. And this nature can lead you to make choices and how you live.

So can reflecting on hasty decisions lead you to make choices and how you live.