Philosophy Now Forum

Would an extreme sociopath not care about himself? He is a human after all. Is that why sociopaths commit suicide?
I love the irony!

raw_thought wrote:Would an extreme sociopath not care about himself? He is a human after all. Is that why sociopaths commit suicide?
I love the irony!

The way I see it, all you’ll ever understand about such a topic comes from what you know about the topic, and the definition of the words. Feel free to philosophically expound on this topic of your interest, and try to make it interesting to a philosophical audience who may, or may not, share this particular interest of yours. Remember, your audience consists of people quite likely more intelligent than you.

raw_thought wrote:Would an extreme sociopath not care about himself?

I think people who don't care about others, don't actually care about themselves either. They ONLY CARE about NOT CARING about everyone/everything 'else', which gives the illusion of caring about themselves.

raw_thought wrote:Would an extreme sociopath not care about himself? He is a human after all. Is that why sociopaths commit suicide?
I love the irony!

Here's the problem - there is no such thing as a sociopath.
Terms such as sociopath and psychopath are defined to enable some descriptive power to talk about people who are outside the norms of behaviour. What "norm" is, is not a static and not always clearly defined, and changes in the historical, social and cultural contexts which describe it.

So you cannot conclude that a person deemed a "sociopath" can be said to not care about himself, as if there were only one type to which all persons so deemed would fit. People are individuals and try as we might they do not so easily fit into our boxes.

But even if we start from a standard definition:"a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour." there is nothing in here to suggest a propensity to commit suicide nor to fail to care about themselves, as being "ANTISOCIAL" implies a problem and revulsion with human interaction- not with all humans. Such a person is very likely to exhibit narcissistic qualities, and think himself above others, better, stronger, and perhaps smarter. He might very well be happy with solitude and being shunned by others, is merely a confirmation of how wonderfully better he is that everyone else.

You'd have to know about the person himself, not just a word used to describe him.

Walker wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Would an extreme sociopath not care about himself? He is a human after all. Is that why sociopaths commit suicide?
I love the irony!

The way I see it, all you’ll ever understand about such a topic comes from what you know about the topic, and the definition of the words. Feel free to philosophically expound on this topic of your interest, and try to make it interesting to a philosophical audience who may, or may not, share this particular interest of yours. Remember, your audience consists of people quite likely more intelligent than you.

OK, you found a way to call me a poopy head without it being obvious that you are acting like a child.
The point I am making is beyond your level of understanding. I am asking, if a sociopath is alienated from everyone, does that imply that he is alienated from himself?

raw_thought wrote: I am asking, if a sociopath is alienated from everyone, does that imply that he is alienated from himself?

No, it doesn't. Be careful not to let ambiguous language confuse observable actions.
As Hobbe's Choice pointed out, sociopathy is a rag-bag diagnosis. It doesn't necessarily contain alienation from humanity, or humanness.
The complex of sociopathic behaviours may include alienation from one's society, or merely rejection of its rules. It often means nothing more than a conviction that the subject is above, or outside, of the rules that bind other, lesser people; that one is exceptional, free of normal constraints, specially entitled, a superman.
In this sense, all heads of state, prelates, CEO's and generals are to some degree sociopathic. It doesn't mean they can't like or love anybody; only that they feel superior enough to make life-and-death decisions for other people.

raw_thought wrote:Would an extreme sociopath not care about himself? He is a human after all. Is that why sociopaths commit suicide?
I love the irony!

There is no irony.

I wonder if you consdier black people to be inferior, or Muslims to be more violent than Christians? You seem to have adopted a mode in thinking we might call "pigeon-holing", its a polite way of describing prejudice. It's a lazy way of thinking that tends to collect a series of attributes to a group of people to save effort thinking more deeply about the sort of categories used and how they function.

Your question specifically moves an argument from a general statement to a specific case. Moving from the general to the particular is a species of philosophical fallacy.

????
I am not calling anyone inferior! I am saying that if ANYONE (white,black, etc) is a sociopath (one that has no feelings for human beings) has any feelings for himself (considering that the sociopath is himself a human being).
I honestly have no idea how you came up with such a weird interpretation of what I wrote.

Are you saying that I am prejudiced againat sociopaths???
Are you aadvocating a sociopath liberation movement???

Of course theee are degrees of mental illness. For example, some are more neurotic then others. Similarly, there are degrees of sociopathy. The most severe case would be one that doesnt even care about himself. That is the inevitable end of the sociopathic path.
The question I pose is more philosophical then sociological. Since the self (an eye cannot see itself) is unknowable to the self,how is it distinguishable from other egos.

Lacewing wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Would an extreme sociopath not care about himself?

I think people who don't care about others, don't actually care about themselves either. They ONLY CARE about NOT CARING about everyone/everything 'else', which gives the illusion of caring about themselves.

That was an intelligent answer.

Walker wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Would an extreme sociopath not care about himself? He is a human after all. Is that why sociopaths commit suicide?
I love the irony!

The way I see it, all you’ll ever understand about such a topic comes from what you know about the topic, and the definition of the words. Feel free to philosophically expound on this topic of your interest, and try to make it interesting to a philosophical audience who may, or may not, share this particular interest of yours. Remember, your audience consists of people quite likely more intelligent than you.

Or at least they try so, so hard to be, right?

There's no one stupider than one that professes their intellectual superiority, whether implied or blatantly stated, it makes no difference, as they're still obsessed with their own version of a Protection-fear racket!

Yeah, Walker is very arrogent. Especially considering that he did not even understand the post.

raw_thought wrote:Of course theee are degrees of mental illness. For example, some are more neurotic then others. Similarly, there are degrees of sociopathy. The most severe case would be one that doesnt even care about himself. That is the inevitable end of the sociopathic path.
The question I pose is more philosophical then sociological. Since the self (an eye cannot see itself) is unknowable to the self,how is it distinguishable from other egos.

You have no frickin clue what you're talking about.

Ok, what do you disagree with?)
1. There are degrees of mental illness.
2. That the self is unknown because metaphorically speaking, an eye cannot see itself.
Simply, calling me names without any argument is childish.