quote
follow
|
26-10-2012 Also, the reason I mentioned suicide is because some people just can't get over that one special person in their lives even if they would be doing fine with other people.Even if you would theoretically be with someone that is not of that 75%, there is always the chance that you would leave him and that could lead him to kill himself. Obviously you can't control the feelings of others, but you would have brought serious suffering to that person, suffering that you yourself are against on the grounds that the whole edifice of existence is based on that. So, in a way, antinatalists who attempt to prevent the foundation of all suffering (being born) are directly contributing to the suffering in many situations in their lives when they inflict harm on other people. |
[ link ] |
26-10-2012
I've answered that in a previous comment. To put it simply, I don't exclude myself from the circle of sentient beings for whom I'd like to prevent suffering. Which means I will not go sacrificing my interests for the sake of others so as not to hurt them because not pursuing my interests will hurt me and I'm not any less important than them. |
|
26-10-2012 That's great commentary and I happen to agree with you completely in this case. Just wanted to hear your take on this.To be honest with you Irina, the psychological manipulation the guy was trying to inflict on you by threatening to kill himself is something I can understand.. but to do that to a psychologist is even worse as you would know exactly why he is doing that I actually did it myself a few years back... mainly because I could't (and still can't) see myself living without a certain someone in my life.. and yet I am still alive... probably because killing yourself is not easy at all no matter how much pain you are in (mental or physical). I am just so sick and tired of hearing everyone say "life is unfair" or "life is hard. suck it up". Why create the problem in the first place if you would say to someone "suck it up later" or if "life is unfair"?! If I was never born, I would not miss not being with that person or would not attempt psychological manipulation to keep them with me. It really is the grand solution to all problems. A lot of my identification with the AN philosophy has to do not only with my personal observations but also my situation in general. |
[ link ] |
26-10-2012
Ok. because I could't (and still can't) see myself living without a certain someone in my life All such baggage we carry from our childhood. Later on we seacrh for something we didn't get from parents in romantic relationships. I'm just saying generally speaking. It can be fixed. Of course, we shouldn't have to deal with any problems on a party we got not invited but dragged to, but here we are so far. and yet I am still alive... probably because killing yourself is not easy at all no matter how much pain you are in (mental or physical). precisely heres Doug Stanhope talking about suicide
|
|
26-10-2012 Yes I heard that part before. Its too bad that no one there actually took it seriously enough to comprehend exactly what Doug was saying outside the humorous contexts he put it in.On the issue of psychology.. I can't say I am a big fan of it, especially as it often used to optimistically defy all pessimistic thinking through cliche... If there is anything to psychology other than cliche.. I am yet to see it (and I did take some courses back in university). All the antinatalist and anti-suicide arguments I've seen so far have been mired in irrational cliche after cliche... to the point where I don't think the person actually takes HIMSELF seriously anymore. |
[ link ] |
27-10-2012
Its too bad that no one there actually took it seriously enough to comprehend exactly what Doug was saying outside the humorous contexts he put it in How do you know, maybe he made people think. Sombody said, if you want to tell people the truth - make them laugh, or they'll kill you. If there is anything to psychology other than cliche.. I am yet to see it (and I did take some courses back in university). Seems like you've reduced the whole science to 'pop psychology'. It is most vocal because it sells. Theres experimental psychology that investigates and educates us on how our psyche works. There is psychotherapy that helps determine where our fears, insecurities and pathogenic beliefs originated from and offers effective tools to change whatever it is we want to change in ourselves. It does not instruct you on how to treat this world. The majority of psychologists most probably are prone to the same optimism bias, just because they're people, too. I'll link to my older comment on this subject. |
|
27-10-2012 "How do you know, maybe he made people think. Sombody said, if you want to tell people the truth - make them laugh, or they'll kill you."Unlikely. I doubt even Carlin was able to truly change anything. These people come there for the laughs as much as they come to MacDonalds for the food.. I can't be sure of it of course but the vast majority I would say it made no difference. "Theres experimental psychology that investigates and educates us on how our psyche works. There is psychotherapy that helps determine where our fears, insecurities and pathogenic beliefs originated from and offers effective tools to change whatever it is we want to change in ourselves. It does not instruct you on how to treat this world." The branches of psychology you described and the general inclination of psychologists for irrationality as well as the pop psychology influence definitely makes sense. However, I don't think psychology is science in the traditional sense of the word (although its damn close). Science is able to observe and measure the world out there using tools that people can be trained to use whereas psychology is mostly introspective and deals with subjective states which cant be measured or even ascertained apart from whatever the person is telling you... which could be a lie for all you know. If the practice of medicine had the same sort of tools at their disposal as science does for physical experiments, determining subjective states of an individual would be straightforward and lots of pain and suffering could be prevented. Same goes for psychology. |
[ link ] |
31-10-2012
I can't be sure of it of course but the vast majority I would say it made no difference. I agree. Not the vast majority. But some people, I think, may have been pushed in the right direction. However, I don't think psychology is science in the traditional sense of the word (although its damn close). True, but to be fare, psychology is probably the only science where the object and the subject coincide. I mean, we're studying psyche with our psyche. Of course, there will be some subjectivity and irrationality there. But it also uses objective of method study like experiment. states which cant be measured or even ascertained apart from whatever the person is telling you I think today we can with brain activity and stuff like that. Also, for that purpose, psychology often uses experiments where the subject aren't aware of what is in fact baing measured. That helps. When they think the test is for measuring erudition and it is for ... whatever. Like in that famous Milgraim experiments which I've mentioned before on the blog where subjects thought they were helping the guy train his memory and in fact they themselves were being 'probed' for conformity. They didn't need to report anything, just press the button or refuse. |
Comments to One guy's attempt at picking me up the other day