Hello Philosophy Society!
Discussion 1: Realistic Goals
It is important that we develop realistic expectations and goals so that we do not become disappointed or frustrated. Focusing on the process of our learning and making sure that the goal is realistic. The future is highly unpredictable so it is important to create goals that are not contingent on outcomes that we cannot control. Developing a step by step plan and being open to modifying the specific outcome criteria as new information is available is important to maintain a sense of realism. Understanding the underlying values behind the goal can illuminate a way to construct the goal such that it is attainable.
Philosophy Academy: Feeling Good Ch7 - Anger
In our study of Feeling Good, we finished off chapter 7 on anger, page 180.
7. “Should Reduction”: To master reducing the amount of ‘should’ expectations we impose on ourselves and others, Burns offers to make a list using the double column technique, page 181. We list all the reasons why another person ‘should’ have acted a certain way then challenge those expectations by understanding why they are unrealistic. (180) The reason for removing should statements has to do with the entitlement we assume from those kinds of perspectives or ideas. Burns states, “It is not true that you are entitled to get what you want just because you want it.” (181) People who do not meet our expectations are usually not trying to hurt us or make us angry. If we get angry, we most often end up polarizing the relationship. (182)
8. Negotiating Strategies: Being angry with others and creating inner turmoil is not the best way to influence them. To get success with others, being calm, firm and assertive is the best. Viewing the situation through a moralistic ‘should’ context can aggravate and polarize the situation evoking the other person to become defensive with counterattack. Burns reminds us that fighting is a form of intimacy. If our energy is not consumed by anger, it can be directed to getting what we want. (182) Burns offers the following effective negotiating principles:
1. Compliment the other person on what they did right. Don’t ‘tell people off.’ Few people can resist being flattered so make an effort to find something good about them or their work. Then mention the problem and explain how it can be solved. (182-3)
2. Disarm them if they argue by finding a way to agree with them independent of how absurd the statements are, then immediately…
3. Clarify your point of view again in a calm and firm way. (183)
It may be necessary to repeat these steps over and over in different combinations until a cooperative solution is reached. Ultimatums or threatening in an intimidating way are something to use only as a last resort. Be diplomatic when you express your views of the problem by not labeling them or being insulting. If you are transparent about any negative feelings you have, make sure not to magnify them in the language you use. (183)
9. Accurate Empathy: The best way to dissolve anger is through empathy. (184) Burns defines sympathy as the capacity to feel what another person is feeling. Being supportive is when we act in a tender, understanding way. Burns states, “Empathy is the ability to comprehend with accuracy the precise thoughts and motivations of other people in such a way that they would say, “Yes, that is exactly where I’m coming from!” (185) This knowledge allows us to understand and accept without being angry why others act in ways we do not like. It is our thoughts that create our anger, not the other person’s behaviour. Once we sense why another person is acting in some way, that awareness can often eliminate any distorted thinking that is creating anger. (185)
It can be very difficult to be empathetic because as humans we are trapped in our own perceptions and we have a tendency to automatically react in a negative way to the meaning of what others are doing. (185) Burns shows a role playing example on page 186 that can be to practice our skills at empathy. If we get angry, we can often get stuck in the jumping to conclusion, mind reading, distortion. (186-7) Even when the other person’s actions appear intentionally hurtful, empathy can be very useful. (187) Even when someone acts in a negative or harmful way, the meaning we attach to the experience is what causes our sense of grief and rage. Sometimes the meaning we have is based on a sense of entitlement, that we expect a certain kind of treatment from others or the world. We can be drastically disappointed when things occur that are different than what we expect. (189)
We can also personalize and use anger as a means to protect our self esteem when in actuality it may simply be other people’s distortions or actions that lead them to behaving in a way that is problematic. We are ultimately not responsible for other people’s actions. (189) On page 190, Burns tests someone using harsh distorted thoughts so that they could respond to the most difficult of comments and be prepared to be on their own. This training exercise showed that they were able to transcend this situation and not become upset by what occurred. Using empathy allowed them to protect their self-esteem. (191)
10. Putting It All Together: Cognitive Rehearsal: Anger can evoke reactive responses to situations without a deliberate, objective reflection of the situation. Anger is usually eruptive and episodic. Once we become aware of our state of mind, it is usually too late and we are already out of control. (191)
The ‘cognitive rehearsal’ method is a way to synthesize all of the techniques up until now by visualizing how we would deal with situations before we are actually in them. This allows us to vividly prepare for a better way of acting within a specific situation. Burns suggests making a hierarchical list of situations, example on page 192, that make us angry from low to high, then visualize our ‘hot thoughts’ from those situations, then develop ‘cool thoughts’ for each of them. (191-2) We then visualize being relaxed and unaffected as we tactfully, assertively and effectively respond to the situation. (192)
When we fantasize or visualize our performance of a situation, it prepares a script for us when we are actually in the moment. The first step is to master the visualization process in the most constructive, healthy way so that we can prevent ourselves from becoming upset in the moment. We are essentially programming ourselves to be assertive and relaxed when the actual situation confronts us. (193)
It is important to be aware that our expectations can manifest results from the self-fulfilling prophecy. This is where our belief can change our behaviour, making the outcome true even though it wouldn't have been if we believed things otherwise. We can create an expectation for both positive and negative outcomes so we are prepared for all conceivable possibilities, even though we are predisposed towards a positive one. (193)
Burns suggests that we approach all provocative situations that may trigger an angry response from us until we learn to think, feel, and act in a peaceful and effective way. It is important to learn flexibility in our approach and use of techniques to account for what is unexpected. We also want to evaluate our progress incrementally as we notice improvement and not disqualify based on an all or nothing standard. We can also request our social group to offer feedback on our progress so that we can illuminate any blind spots we may have. (193)
Anger Principles: Burns concludes the chapter with ten things to know about anger.
1. Events in the world do not make us angry, only our thoughts do. If a negative event occurs, the meaning we give that event determines how we respond emotionally. (194) When we accept responsibility for our anger, we gain an advantage in the opportunity of being in control and the freedom to choose our feelings. If we did not have this capacity, we would be helpless over our emotions and every emotional response to the world would be out of our control. (195)
2. Most often anger is not helpful because it immobilizes us, becoming frozen in unproductive hostility. If we search for creative solutions instead, we will feel better. We can eliminate helplessness and frustration by thinking about what we can do to correct the situation or prevent the same circumstance from happening again. Resentment from a situation with no solution prevents us from experiencing joy. We can spend our time ruminating or thinking about some of our happiest moments. (195)
3. Anger is most often created by distorted thoughts and correcting them will reduce the anger. (195)
4. Anger is most often caused by the perception of being treated unfairly or an unjust event. Depending on the degree of international maliciousness we perceive, the intensity of our anger will be proportioned to that. (195)
5. Learning to be empathetic via seeing the world through their eyes, can give realization to their actions are not unfair from their perspective. Unfairness is usually an illusion we created in our own mind. If we can let go of unrealistic concepts that truth, justice and fairness are shared by everyone, we will remove our frustration and resentment. (195-6)
6. Others do not feel they deserve our punishment so when we retaliate it will not help us achieve our goals in our interactions. Rage and anger polarizes and deteriorates relationships from a self-fulfilling prophecy we have created. Short-term, temporary gains from hostile manipulation does not balance long-term consequences from resentment and retaliation. People do not like being controlled or forced to do things. Giving a positive reward works better. (196)
7. Most anger is from a loss of self-esteem when we are criticized, disagreed with, or others do not behave how we want them to. This anger is always inappropriate because only our own distorted thinking reduces our self-esteem. (196)
8. Being frustrated comes from expectations not being met. All events are part of reality therefore they are realistic even though we may have not expected them. All frustration results from unrealistic expectations. We can influence reality to make it closer to our expectation but it isn’t always practical. It is more often easier to change our expectations. (196) For example, some unrealistic expectations are:
a. I deserve what I want.
b. I should be successful with hard work.
c. Others should meet my expectations.
d. All of my problems should be solved quickly and easily.
e. Others will appreciate me if I am good to them.
f. Others should think and act like me.
g. Others should reciprocate if I am nice to them. (197)
9. Even though we have the right to be angry, is it to our advantage to feel that way? How do we benefit from it? (197)
10. Anger is not needed to be human. We would not be robots without anger. Without being angry, we can experience pleasure, productivity, enlightenment, and freedom. (197)
Buy the book here:
Read a brief summary of the book here:
https://www.achillesjustice.com/post/feeling-good
Burns, David. Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy. Harper Publishing. New York, 1999. Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy Mass Market Paperback – Dec 30 2008
WaC 1: Critical Thinking vs Mental Health
Ahmed: Could critical thinking lead an individual astray? Could critical thinking lead a thinker or a philosopher to terrible actions like suicide? What does history have to offer in regards to this subject? Is critical thinking enough?
Achilles: Critical thinking is the evaluation and assessment of beliefs, ideas, evidence and actions. Critical thinking is what you would use, amongst a few other things, to bring yourself back with healthy people and remove distorted thinking, which is a major cause of suicidal behavior.
Hence why we are learning Feeling Good right now. Which is like critical thinking applied to emotions. I would suggest reading feeling good, 70% of people who read it in 4 weeks were basically cured of depression. You can also read the newsletters where i summarize the chapter were covering Wednesday
B: In their time, Stalin and Hitler were praised as "highly logical'
Ahmed: Dr. Burns' writing is excellent. I’ve read the entire work and I recommend it as well. Logical mind and an emotionally balanced heart. Is this the aim?
Achilles: Praised by those that benefited from their actions. But were they reasonable? No. They are examples of people responsible for the holocaust. They used manipulation and propaganda to coerce large populations of people to murder each other. That is not reasonable
We can determine the reasonability of their values, views and actions by applying critical thinking and understanding how psychological and social biases were used as an attainment of power to oppress millions of people. Then, we reflect on how people like that came into power and structure society to prevent it from happening again. Hence why NATO and the west support Ukraine against Putin and the Kremlin.
It is not reasonable to be a psychopath. Humans evolved to cooperate and establish harmonious relationships. Psychopathology exists because at certain points of our evolutionary history disregarding the wellbeing of others promoted our survival.
Now, these traits in the hands of those with nuclear weapons, like North Korea's current increase in nuclear weaponization and missile testing, is threatening our survival. So, learning how to suppress and grow from unreasonable traits like psychopathology or sociopathology, is important. These pro-social skills will create a world where power and dominion do not rein free because people have the autonomy and agency to stand up for themselves.
To have autonomy and agency, critical thinking is necessary. One must be aware of their beliefs and have the choice over their behaviour. Instead of the other way around. Values are also important, Nietzsche discussed the revaluation of values, where we become aware of the structure and priority ranking of our values. Here we can gain more autonomy with critical thinking applied to what we think is important.
Critical thinking is essentially, does what I am thinking or doing make sense? Do my beliefs make sense? Am I being reasonable? Being reasonable means you think logically, which is to say with statements that are true and organized in a valid format. We can evaluate reasonability via screening for informal and formal logical fallacies. One fallacy with hitler and Stalin is ad populum, just because the majority agree does not make it true.
The advent of psychology as a science has shown us over 150 cognitive and social biases. These reduce our reasonability and are important to be mindful of. So conformity can lead to people doing harmful acts. Milgram conducted his experiments in the 1960s in response to WWII to understand why Hiter was able to manipulate people into doing horrific acts. They found that when instructed to shock someone by a person in a perceived position of authority, the majority of people shocked the participant to death. The guy was an actor and no one was hurt, but the point was clear.
The other thing is perceived reasonability is different than actually being reasonable. Both hitler and Stalin killed their own people and anyone who questioned them. A reasonable person invites questions with a keen ability to answer them and showing the logic supporting their conclusions. They can also provide evidence or facts for their premises.
In terms of depression, there are several facts like you have value as a human being no matter who approves of you, how productive you are, who gives you love, or if your expectations are met. Our value as humans is constant and unchanging. So when we have negative thoughts we use our critical thinking to prove those harmful thoughts wrong, supporting our value and self esteem.
Reggie: Kierkegaard (and many in his family) suffered from depression -- "the most faithful mistress I have known…” The mathematician Georg Cantor was bipolar and also suffered from depression. Gottlob Frege was anti-Semitic and hated liberals and democrats. He would've been canceled today.
Achilles: Kierkegaard and Cantor suffering from depression and bipolar disorder is where they are coming from, their predisposition. The wisdom or insight they gain from their states is something we can understand because they expressed it in a way that makes sense. It would be incorrect to think that becoming depressed or following patterns of bipolar disorder is the the wisdom from these individual’s experiences. They both had mental health issues and made the best out of it but that does not take away from the suffering and dysfunction that came from those conditions.
Frege being anti-semitic is an issue and is irrelevant from his mathematical contributions. Cancel culture is a blunt instrument that would be inappropriately applied in his and has been in many others. The goal of cancel culture is to provide some punishment for immoral behaviour so that people do not act that way in the future.
Anti-semitism, as an example of something cancel culture addresses, is clearly wrong and unethical. Canceling people does not actually prevent them from acting this way, however. It silences them but they still believe what they believe. Removing them from the public sphere does make sense so that they do not propagate hate speech, but some form of engagement, like with a psychologist or philosopher speaking to Kanye West, to help him sort through his ideas. There may be underlying psychological issues that are at the root and cause of why people like K.W. go to such lengths to support such ideas.
Reggie: Each person needs to unearth and understand their unconscious biases. Those biases are part of the set of axioms/premises that underlie your thoughts and beliefs. Once you have uncovered those, then you can start assessing them through critical thinking. That said, making sense of our biases -- conscious and unconscious -- is an always-on process as those biases tend to change and evolve over time.
For example, I don't have kids yet, but I'm sure once I do (biological or otherwise), those biases would change.Same if I was to find out I had a terminal disease, or some other life-altering event. Tchaikovsky, one of history's greatest musicians, was a gay man who lived in 19th century Russia. Given the culture at the time, no amount of critical thinking could have helped him. As a result, he suffered extreme angst and depression throughout his life, and nearly drove himself to suicide.
Nietzsche is typically made fun of for going crazy after trying to protect a horse being whipped. Odds are though that he actually had syphilis or brain tumour. My point: critical thinking is definitely a useful tool set, but ultimately not sufficient for a happy, fulfilling life.
Achilles: Critical thinking is one part of the puzzle, there are other factors that are important like the content we have been learning in the book Feeling Good. If Tchaikovsky, was suffering from depression, he could have worked through his distorted thoughts and separated what was in his control and what was not, relative to the cultural oppression he was suffering at the time.
Critical thinking, making sense of things is one tool that is necessary. In the content that we have been going through, I have decided to teach the Philosophy of CBT, via Burns Feeling Good, specifically because critical thinking is about making sense in our reasoning. Whereas, the book Feeling Good, looks at how distorted thinking causes mental health issues like depression, suicide, anger, and problems of motivation. Burn’s teaching on cognitive distortions is a kind of critical thinking that is specifically directed towards our moods. This entails that it helps us develop a happy fulfilling life.
Training in critical thinking, learning to understand the quality of argumentation is not necessarily tied to one’s well being, but this training is important so that people can be autonomous over their decisions and beliefs.
Becoming aware of cognitive and social biases is another means to gain control over ourselves so that we have the self-determination to make decisions. In positive psychology, self-determination has been proven as the #1 factor that increases one’s eudaimonia and satisfaction in the workplace.
WaC 2: Eudaimonia
Reggie: Stoicism focuses on logic and reason in order to determine which virtues to practice in order to achieve eudaimonia. The result though is that one's feelings and emotions are pushed to the backburner.
Aristotle takes virtue ethics and includes other things such as personal health, wealth, family and friendship in order to achieve happiness. Individualism and Romanticism add on the importance of subjectivism and inspiration. And the importance of art and personal expression in general. Also the idea that everyone has an individual gift/talent that makes them unique in the world. So basically, tons of stuff to focus on in life 😁
Natalia: Critical thinking maybe is not a panacea to every problem that may occur but will help us in everyday life and the well-being of our society. Just think how it can enrich our lives if such a strategy could be created and implemented in our educational institutions. The ability to recognize and redirect your thoughts in the right direction is the crucial part of your being in control of yourself. Those individuals that you mention are the rare cases of the entire population, why concentrate on them? My personal goal is to be able to help myself and the people around me! Start with little-achieve a lot !
Achilles: I would disagree that stoicism is a focus solely on logic and reason. Epictetus is a stoic philosopher and is in a large way the founder of current therapeutic practices. He discussed how it is important for our wellbeing to not become upset about things that are not in our control. If we waste emotional energy on things that are not in our control, we will be unnecessarily suffering.
Aristotle assumes some basic factors for a good life but his focus in the Nicomachean and Eudemian Ethics is on the application of virtue not going to excess or deficiency. He discusses how we apply these virtues to various situations. At the end of the NE, he also shifts his perspective to include how living a life of contemplation is the good life. The best form of contemplation is one that makes sense. It is wise to have structure to our thinking process and not be subject to mindless thoughts that come in and out of existence, and do not cohere together.
Yes everyone is unique and can contribute to the world but we are all fundamentally human. If there are unnecessary forms of suffering and if there were some method to increase the quality of life of every person who participated in that method, it would make sense to do it. It would only increase our ability to fully express our individuality and live the ‘good life’ relative to the kind of person we are.
But we are all human and certain things will negatively affect any person because we all fall under that category. Learning to express our ideas reasonably is one thing that will increase our wellbeing in our capacity for self-determination of our own ideas and decision making.
Critical thinking helps people to detect when being manipulated and lied to. Some individuals suffer from antisocial personality disorder which has these two properties as fundamental traits. They prey on the weak minded. Lastly, CT helps us to not be dominated by tyrannical governments and gives us merit in our votes within a democracy. If we do not fully comprehend or understand what the issues are in our country or society, how will we know what is best to vote on?
The purpose of me establishing this group is not to collect a Wild Wild West group of opinionated people but to distill out a method and practice of how we can work on what it means to live a good life. Doing this alone is not sufficient and hence having a social group to practice will enhance training in learning about factors like cognitive and social biases. If we can have others who are trained in critical thinking, they can help detect the flaws in our reasoning with a constructive view, give us feedback, so that we can improve on what we think or believe.
This group is a practical application of what will later be my Phd: there are certain skills, habits, philosophies, etc that if we practice them we will necessarily increase our capacity to live a good life. This is not only being virtuous as Aristotle discusses, but also an active role in our mental health. This means that we work on things like Burns’ CBT distortion skills to prevent problems related to mood disorders that do not require medication.
Every person who has participated in the weekly Wednesday training sessions where we have been practicing the philosophy of CBT has reported how the content has already made a significant impact in their lives. This book is only the beginning of the program and this is only one group who is actively working on it. In the future, there will be many groups, in different locations that are practicing and training, and they will discover their own results from the content they work on and the people who are with them.
To have an ‘anything goes’ approach to life is wrong. The YOLO mentality or a disbelief that mental health issues can be improved is incorrect. It has been shown through clinical trials that certain interventions, that are not pharmaceutical, work that are not attributed to the placebo effect. From therapeutic communities and AA helping with substance abuse, to group therapy and social integration helping with schizophrenia, to CBT helping depression, and DBT helping borderline personality disorder, the science of psychology has made drastic improvements on all fronts of issues pertaining to wellbeing and mental health.
What we do need is to figure out how to deal with issues like Narcissistic personality disorder, psychosis and bipolar disorder that does not have the problems seen with medication or the lack of efficacy attempting therapy with NPD.
This is not to say that if you enjoy your suffering, which is contradictory and most would not agree, even though Kierkegaard may have romanticized his state. Most people, like 99.999%, when they have some problem do not want that problem. Their mental health states are a product of them sorting out issues in getting a job, dealing with their family, emotional issues, relationship issues, parenting, etc. The mental illness is that which prevents them from being fully satisfied and successful in these categorical areas of human existence.
I am willing to find a way that works for everyone, regardless of where you are on the spectrum of mental health. I believe that this would be some type of social institution, like what we are growing here, that trains people how to manage their own life issues and how to respond to others when they suffer from problems. I do not know the extent of this idea’s success but the only way for me to know is to be ‘scientific’ and test it out. I know this is not an experiment or study that is double blind and has other procedures that prevent biases seen scientifically. At this point, we’re working with a case study.
WaC 3: Psychopathology
J: I agree with some things you said but I strongly disagree with suppressing unreasonable traits like psychopathology. In fact, suppression causes a lot of damage to society in general, and psychopaths learn to master suppression from a young age. Psychopaths like Ted Bundy suppress their true feelings and hide their true motives from everyone they chose to hurt.
We are taught as children to suppress any feelings the adults label as wrong or as bad and this leads to major mental health problems. We have to stop labeling feelings and emotions as right or wrong and learn to accept each other and embrace what we perceive as negative as well as positive emotions. Embarrassing, acceptance and understanding are the key components for healing.
If we stop suppressing our emotions and we can openly talk about our feelings without the fear of being judged or chastised by the adults in our life or society then we can start to heal. Suppression does the opposite of healing. Suppression is like burying a ticking time bomb in the hopes that if you don’t see it or hear it anymore it won’t cause much damage once it explodes. Don’t be fooled! It will cause damage and it can even kill you once it explodes.
J: It is not reasonable to be a psychopath but a psychopath cannot change. A psychopath lacks the empathy needed to change and to improve themselves for the good of society as a whole.
Anything a psychopath does is always with only themselves in mind. A psychopath does not see anything wrong with themselves and are definitely not reasonable humans by any definitions or standards.
Achilles: A psychopath simply lacks neurological structures that give them the same kind of awareness and regard for us. Not every psychopath is a criminal or engages in harmful behaviour. It is important for us to find a way to integrate individuals who suffer from this condition into society proactively, so that they do not harm others or commit crimes. They may not feel the same way we do, but if they are reasonable, we can use our critical thinking skills to discuss why certain values are important.
It's like a blind person needing a walker. The psychopath sees people as objects in their world and will use them as they need, without regard for their feelings. How can the methodology I have been proposing address some form of training or social environment that would counterbalance this condition proactively instead of our reliance on the criminal justice systems’ retroactive model? It's better to give the psychopath the necessary tools so they don't decide to harm others than having to punish them once they have. The retroactive criminal model will never catch all cases of harm, whereas a proactive model has the potential to prevent all if developed correctly.
J: Yes, this is true and even psychopaths (since Achilles mentioned them) do have unique gifts and talents as well as everyone else. Hitler hated everyone it seemed but he loved dogs apparently. Psychopaths can fool everyone because they hide their true nature from the rest of the world. Eventually, they get caught because it’s very hard to hide forever.
J:
Both of these men were born in April 1889. One was an “angel” and was considered at one point to be the most famous man on the planet. The other was the “devil” in the flesh, the “lucifer”, the narcissist, the impersonator, who was jealous of Chaplin’s fame and of his famous moustache and shaved it exactly like Chaplin’s. Hitler’s true motive for as to why he did shave it like chaplin’s is unknown. Only Hitler knows why he did it. It could have been to gain as many followers and admirers as Chaplin’s simply by resembling him. Hitler might have wanted to look charming and not look like the devil he was. Who knows. I do not think it was a coincidence. But it’s funny how it was Chaplin that later imitated Hitler and he did a wonderful speech, “The great dictator”. Chaplin died on Christmas day at the age of 88. Hitler, the psychopath was always a murder from the beginning and he also killed himself, apparently at the age of 56. Don’t be fooled again! Narcissists are everywhere.
J: Charlie Chaplin chose to transform his pain and suffering into something beautiful, into an art, and he chose to make us all laugh even though he was crying inside. Hitler chose to transform his pain,(his greed, his hate and his anger) into something monstrous we can also call art, science and progress.
Science is destroying us. Technology is destroying our nature. We are not machines. We are not robots. We are all alone talking to our “smart” phones. Like Chaplin said-“We have developed speed but shut ourselves in” We literally get anxiety if we don’t have our phones. We love to have “followers “ and “likes” We crave it. these are not true followers or true likes. These are not true friendships or real connections because we are not machines.
We prohibit public displays of affection but we have pornography readily and freely available for our 13 years olds to watch. We are self destructing. 😢Hitler is winning. Chaplin is not 😢 More people talk about Hitler today than they talk about the great man Charlie Chaplin was. The gentle souls are easily forgotten. It’s a shame.
Achilles: I would not agree here Juliet. Hitler used science in a monstrous way. We don't want to say that hitler’s behaviour produced science. Hitler used a neutral method, science, for unethical means.
Science is not destroying us. For example, we have recently had a large breakthrough in fusion energy. Once we further develop this means of producing energy, we will not have to be reliant on fossil fuels. This means that science is helping us correct the problems of climate change based on the abuse of natural resources.
Hitler is not winning. Putin, the current Hitler of our time, is losing the war in Ukraine. Many people are suffering but the problem has not grown beyond the territories that Putin has claimed. The issue is dictatorship and there are several countries with nuclear weapons that are based on this political framework. It is important that we develop a social method to protect us from these kinds of governments, hence why we develop the philosophy society: so that we can detect as people when the signs of dictatorship are present with our awareness of our psychological processes and our ability to use our critical thinking to communicate what we see.
At this point in time, we have not fully overcome dictatorship in the world. There are many countries (Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc) that are based on dictatorship. It is up to all of us to develop a way to dissolve these abuses of power and give freedom to the people who live in those lands.
J: How do you propose to include them? Would you exclude them? Would you give them a “big time out” from society? And then eventually let them back in?
Achilles: Psychopaths are part of humanity. We do not know exactly what it is, for example it may be a gene that is epigenetic and is expressed with certain environmental or prenatal conditions. We may all have the psychopathological gene in us or at least have the capacity to act that way. Many people in WWI did terrible things without regard for those who were suffering because of the social structure they were embedded in.
There are two ways we can go here:
1) it is a born trait - in this context we would have to screen children when they are in school and counterbalance psychopathological traits with compassion, mindfulness and empathy training. Maybe the people who show these signs become monks.
2) it is a socially induced condition - in this situation we would use structures like the Philosophy Society to prevent people from disregarding others by being aware of anti social behaviour and rewarding prosocial behaviour. Having the skills to do a meta-social critique is important and what we will practice here so that when someone does act in a disregarding way, we have the training to communicate about it.
Also, preventing large scale organizations where people dehumanize and segregate each other seen in the holocaust and even recently in the january 6th insurrection in the U.S. Developing a social group that does not function on biases like conformity or fallacies like ad populum, will give that group the ability to be internally coherent and respond to external social groups in a way that they can deconstruct their formulation based on certain properties. If you notice a charismatic leader manipulating people, you will be able to communicate demonstrable behaviours to take the power away from that leader. This is even applicable in the workplace.
We are all humanity and finding harmony within us is the point. The predisposition towards psychopathology is something we may not be able to change, but we can influence how it is expressed if we are aware of it.
J: Our self destruction is inevitable as of today even if we change now. Global warming is not my imagination. The world could last a lot longer if we stop “progressing” NOW!
Achilles: I do not agree that our self-destruction is inevitable. This sounds like the Catastrophizing distortion. Also, all or nothing thinking. It is not that we can either progress or not, but how we go about progress. Overgeneralization - our past problems in progress do not mean we will have issues for all the future.
J: Instead of stopping progress we want to build a space ship (let’s call it Noah’s ark just for fun) and we want to go populate other planet lol. Our creator made the other galaxies far away for a very good reason. Our Noah’s ark and our plan to save human kind is a joke. But not really. The future of human kind is in OUR hands and it’s not a joke!
Achilles: How do we define progress? If we use time as the fundamental factor, as long as we exist we are progressing. If we use the development of civilization or our coherence in a biodiversity context, then we would have different results of progress. Even if we go to another planet, we still have the same issues of dictatorship, psychopathology and other mental health problems that will follow us there.
J: I think we are delusional
Achilles: sometimes but not all the time
J: If you knew how many psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists I had to meet before I met God you would realize two things. One, these people are not as rare as everyone seems to think and two, God is not so unreal as everyone thinks. In all actuality, the narcissists I met during 39 long years of my life before finally meeting God in August were way more “unbelievable” and way more “unreal” than God Himself.
When I met God I had no doubt in my mind that He was God and it was because of having met so many narcissists prior to meeting Him. God is the opposite of all the narcissists I met. He is so humble but so majestic. He is so powerful but so harmless. He is so big but YOU can’t even see Him.
Narcissists are easy to see and they want to, in fact be seen and be noticed but people don’t realize they are narcissists because they pretended to be harmless and they can be very charming to the naked eye. GOD IS UNBELIEVABLE. God is unbelievably good. GOD is everything. The only One I would die for and the ONE that actually does not want to see me burn at all, ever.🔥
God does not want any of us to burn, believe it or not God doesn’t even want the psychopaths to burn. He wants us to be aware of them so we can protect ourselves but God does not want to harm anyone or anything. GOD IS PURE LOVE❤️
WaC 4: Philosophizing Spirituality
Achilles: If someone has a special, personal, spiritual experience that motivates them towards compassion towards others and gives them meaning in life, that is a good thing. However, a relationship with any spiritual entity is very subjective, even in group based, religious contexts. People have very different views of ‘higher’ powers.
The problem in terms of this subjectivity is that some people interpret certain actions as violating the dogmatic beliefs of their spiritual views. They then use this interpretation to kill, torture and disregard the suffering of others in the name of ‘god.’
I bring up the example of the current women’s rights movement in Iran to demonstrate that within their country, there is mass killings, beatings and imprisonment of people who act in their own views of spirituality and freedom. The regime in power, takes their interpretation as a justification for the killing and beating of innocent women.
Personal experience with god is really only meaningful to you and those that take your word for it. Many people ascribe to religious dogmatic behaviour and end up causing a lot of harm to others. These things may be spiritual but they do not permit much philosophy nor ethics. To be philosophical would be to make sense of these experiences and not use them as justifications for hurting other people as has been done over and over again in history.
I understand and recognize that your view of spirituality is one of compassion and love. That is great for you and the rest of the world that you would not use spiritual experiences or beliefs as a justification for hurting people.
But what do we say to people who have the same psychological experience, but the voice does tell them to hurt people? Can you see how the same reasoning you are using for yourself, when applied to a person that has a different experience, can lead them to causing harm to others? This is basically what happens often and throughout history. The same reason why you would not accept any other explanation for your experience is what a large group of misguided men beating a woman in Iran would say. They could say god came to them in a dream and showed them a vision of the world burning in hell if they did not sacrifice the women not following the hijab protocol.
This type of thinking and blind devotion to religious and spiritual experiences is a slippery slope. For some people it may bring peace and meaning in life. But for much of the world and our history, it has been used to hurt many people.
Lastly, the judeo-christian god shows many properties of narcissism; rage, vengefulness, demand for worship or eternal damnation, that are all expressed in a ‘holy’ book called the bible. If you have a different view of what god is that is not narcissistic, it would have to be something other than the entity described in the bible. A loving god would not harm its people. There is a lot of harm to humans in the old testament from god. Even the first commandment, “You shall have no other God's before me.” is pretty narcissistic.
I am all for a non-narcissistic god, maybe jesus emulates more of this than others but there is still the sense of superiority and worship which are both traits of narcissism.
J: Are you saying I’m not being philosophical when I’m sharing my spiritual experience with all of you? Why did you bring me here, I’m curious?
I told you in private I found God before you brought me here before the public again after you put me in a “big time out for being a bad girl” by “bad girl” I mean for having a different opinion than yours and for expressing it without sugar coating it.
Like I said before, I’ve always believed in God but I never thought I would ever see him. I wanted to study the philosophy of religion to prove to you that God was real and before that ever happened God appeared to me.
I could be here and say “oh why me, out of all of these people that believe in God, why did He appear to me?” but I’m not going to say that because I’m not surprised He appeared to me. After all I suffered I always believed in God and I never stopped believing but I did have to stop talking about Him.
Did you know I had to pretend I didn’t believe in God because they took my children away? I had to pretend because of those people you’re referring to, people that kill their own children and say God told them to do it. I met Him. I met God. He would never demand anything from anyone. He would never demand a sacrifice. He would never punish or kill anyone either. It’s all lies.
A lot of religious writings are written by narcissists not by God. GOD HIMSELF, never killed anyone, never wrote anything, never labeled, never judged, never demanded anything from anyone. He never invented any religions. GOD is total freedom. We are not free but it’s not because of God.
We were all deceived by Lucifer, His son. The son that thought he was better than his Creator. The creation wanted to find out more about how the Creator did it all so you could beat Him at His game.
The narcissist that gave us all this trait of feeling superior to one another wanted to find out the science behind God’s creation and God said do not try to know because the truth is we will never know everything. Only God knows everything. He made everything.
God is not narcissist at all. God is superior but if you met Him you would think he is just another animal. He acts more like a cow than a God.
The cow is a mother. The cow could hurt you if she really wanted but she doesn’t. The cow let’s you steal her milk and her babies from her and she remains beautiful and tame. She is angry and hurt but you wouldn’t guess because if you did you would stop hurting such a beautiful being, such a beautiful mother.
Those who kill in the name of God or in God’s behalf are the same people who killed on Hitlers behalf. There’s a lot of people that tell themselves they would hide a whole family of Jewish people in their houses and put themselves in danger but the reality is that very few would do it. You’re not going to risk your life to save another. Jesus did that. He risked it an he died so he could show us our true nature.
One apostle sold him, the other denied him and in the end when he was about to die only John was there and the three mariams, or marys, or women. Three women. One was his wife, one was his mother and the other was is aunt, (john’s mother).
Jesus never transformed water into wine. They said that so people would consume more alcohol. He never walk on water. Jesus was a great swimmer and dove deep to summon the fish so that the fisherman could witness “a miracle”
Jesus was a philosopher and a healer and got killed. Burn the witch! Burn me! I’m a witch because I saw God and God told me the earth is going to burn but it’s not out of punishment. God does not punish and that is why we are in this mess. it’s out of our own greed and our own stupidity.
There I said it. Burn me! Or put me in a time out! God loves the world He created and we are collectively destroying it and blaming everyone but ourselves. The bullies, the bullied and the bystanders. We are all to blame. Like I said before I do not care about winning or losing. arguments anymore. We are all losing if we lose this beautiful planet. I’m here with a message. Don’t shoot the messenger! Or shoot me! You’re free! And I’m free too.
God is just warning us, that’s all. He is not evil. He is pure love ❤️ God bless you Achilles ❤️
WaC 5: Disagreement and Discussion
S: It's so nice to see you in this group❤️❤️ I respect your beliefs and to be honest I respect everyone's. Life is filled with so many complexities. It is important to keep an open mind to people's beliefs and choices.
One should not judge the other for not believing in the same thing as them. As well one should not judge the other if they make different choices then them. The only reason to judge is if the individual's beliefs or choices cause a negative impact on others or themselves.
Why are we so critical of others beliefs and choices...I would say a lack of awareness of oneself. This is our only life. Once we gain a stronger awareness of this we become more accepting. And we spend our time doing more productive things.
Reggie: I don't see why we can't talk about God in a philosophy group. Discussion about the existence of God is a foundational course in university philosophy departments. To suggest that God only means something at the personal level completely discounts centuries of philosophical debate/discussion. Personally, I was brought up Catholic right up to high school. It wasn't after I graduated with my honours degree in philosophy that I became atheist.Conversely, I know people who have had the exact opposite experience
I get the need to distinguish between psychological experiences that may hurt vs harm someone. But then that isn't philosophy anymore. We are now venturing into the psychological space. Being open to pure philosophical discussion requires 100% rational discussion and debate. Anything should be on the table, regardless of the logical conclusions that might be reached. As such, to selectively choose discussion topics for the protection of others, justified as it might be, is no longer philosophy.
I guess this was part of what I was trying to get at the other evening: Is this really about "philosophy", or the use of philosophical tools (ie. critical thinking) to augment a form of clinical psychology?
Because if we want to talk philosophy, then we should be open to talking about the medieval philosophers, most of whom were religious, as well as the French postmodernists who are the basis of today's moral relativism and openness to anything. In a sense, by assuming the good life is the end goal, we have taken on a teleological approach that forces us then to redirect all efforts at that purpose.
As Nietzsche suggests, why do we search for truth? Why not untruth?
To be clear, I fully respect and agree with the aims and goals of achieving eudaimonia and living a virtuous life. But the fact remains that this is a particular philosophical position. It does not encompass the true breadth and depth of philosophy as a discipline.
For me, I'm looking for engaging discussions on interesting and potentially provocative topics. It could be about anything: God, guns, germs, government, gratification, etc.Here's the topic: agree or disagree? We take our positions, and then debate the hell out of them. That's what philosophy is.
And calling into question someone's beliefs would never be seen as disrespectful. On the contrary, it's a more sophisticated approach to how a child annoyingly asks "Why?" when trying to understand something. Sometimes you are convinced, and other times you aren't. That's just how it is. That's life. Nobody will agree with you 100%. Just ask your significant others lol.
I'm not white/Caucasian, but if you want to have a truly philosophical/intellectual discussion of why white supremacy is logically sound, then let's have that discussion. That doesn't mean I'm a masochist. I reckon they're are many people who don't think of themselves as truly racist (ie. they have friends, peers etc of different ethnicities) but might have a feeling of ethnic superiority. To me, that kind of stuff is interesting as it helps us understand why we have racists in the world.
Anyway, perhaps it's my fault for ignoring the focus on psychological well-being and CBT. But I've read parts of Feeling Good and have listened to Burns on podcast. And while I don't disagree with his methods (which includes behavioural tests), it's geared at something different from philosophy proper.
Not trying to be a naysayer here, but this is a philosophy group, and so it bothers me that someone who is passionate about a philosophical topic feels uncomfortable expressing themselves. Why not open it all up for discussion/dissection? Let's philosophize, dammit!
Natalia: The Philosophy Society is the place to heal not to get angry! To shear your opinion without pressuring others! To send positive vibes and optimism!
Achilles created this group and he dedicates himself to it trying to be mindful of everyone. As the creator, he is responsible for the content in a chat. The last thing we want to do is to judge his actions of censorship or adding or removing people from the group. There is always an option to create your group and lead it the way you would like. If someone or something bothers you there is a Dr. Burns method of critical thinking for your convenience to use. Please be respectful
Reggie: In a 'philosophy' group, the point is to question and challenge. That's what philosophy is all about. Perhaps the rules of this particular chat then should be more front and center? Fair point re: administration. Then let's just have rules explicitly laid out so there can be no misunderstanding.
WaC 6: Chat Moderation
Achilles: Sometimes there are people who will get upset and not be in control. If I have to remove them for saying false or hurtful things I will.
I give almost everyone I know a chance to be here, even when they and I have had our own personal problems. Some people I feel would benefit from learning philosophical engagement and being able to have a group that will listen to them and offer reasonable feedback. But, sometimes the personal issues we have had or their own limitations, prevent them from participating in a healthy way.
It is difficult managing this group because people sometimes engage in hateful behavior towards me.I have learned that in those moments, I have a responsibility to remove those people because of the reason they are engaging. It is malicious and not a philosophically oriented approach. If they are interested in personally attacking me, that will not work and is unfair to me. I put a lot of effort into this organization.
I don't expect people to agree, I expect to be shown how my reasoning is flawed so I can improve. I hope others wish the same but that's up to them. It has been healthy here since last year. The same person was causing problems and I removed them then. I gave them another chance and they started the same pattern of behaviour again.
There is an administrative role I play in keeping this a safe space. It is a responsibility I accept and if you notice an issue please tell me. I received several complaints about the person removed yesterday and the one I removed today, aside from my own issues with their approach.
Reggie: Got it. Yah nothing should be communicated publicly without consent. So if someone can easily be identified, then that should be removed. Also, if someone is being harassed privately -- especially the moderator, then that person shouldn't be tolerated in the same group.
Achilles: They became angry and instead of managing their emotions in a constructive way. They aggressively made a false report to be malicious. I was openly entertaining the discussion of god, personal spiritual experience, etc.
We can talk about philosophizing almost anything, what would be the limit? But when someone is bringing up personal information as a means to defame their character that's not appropriate. Specifically, the fallacy, ad hominem or attack on someone's character
We're here to make sense of sensitive information. Its not about 'being right,' but the shared value of understanding. Through discussion and empathy we can make an effort to understand each other. That's being philosophical.
Declaring you see the world in a certain way, as if others must conform to you, is not philosophical.
Reggie: I don't think there's a limit on the topic, as long as one can substantiate their premises. The only appropriate limit would be duration of the discussion and character count.
Ali: Philosophy is not to compete, it's to let go. (just my opinion tho, respect yours)
Achilles: That sounds much like the Tao.
Reggie: All ideas follow some kind of value hierarchy for each person. It's about discussion and debate, in order to either disprove or crystallize one's held ideas and ideals. Maybe we have a discussion about something and you raise a point that I haven't seriously considered. I may not accept it right away, but upon reflection, it might shape my thoughts/beliefs/values.
PSN 3(1) - 2.1.23 - Realistic Goals, FG Ch7, Critical Thinking vs Mental Health, Eudaimonia, Psychopathology, Spiritual Philosophy, Disagreement and Discussion, Chat Moderation
© Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com, 2018-23. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.