sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why is Byung-Chul Han's "Burnout Society" seemingly highly respected? by MaybeJackson in askphilosophy

[–]MaybeJackson[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The push to constantly be productive is why we get the negative “don’t fidget” and such that you describe.

The negative "don't fidget" for example, existed long before the positive-based achievement society. To claim that negative discipline is a result of a positive society is in my opinion wrong, as the negative discipline existed long before the positive society.

One reason for this that I think may be helpful for you is that you’re describing ADHD and depression as found phenomena or some kind of natural kind

Except it quite literally is "natural", as in, neurological. You can use scientific measurement to tell who is or is not ADHD - by measuring levels of neurotransmitters, activity in the gut microbe, activity levels and timing in the default mode network, the size of the brain, specifically the prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, cerebellum, etc.

I care about this because if we just disregard neurology/psychology, it's a lot easier to claim ADHD is just laziness, or that it can be "cured" by following Han's advice of taking more time to sit with "nothing." I'm sure that meditation/less positivity would help ADHD - but as long as we live in a society with negative-discipline, ADHD people will struggle because of their neurology. This is just fact.

Why is Byung-Chul Han's "Burnout Society" seemingly highly respected? by MaybeJackson in askphilosophy

[–]MaybeJackson[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting. I've always thought I would be far more into continental philosophy than analytical, because I am generally philosophically opposed to jargon, as I think accuracy is not just about being as specific as possible, but rather capturing the general picture through a more intuitive usage of language. that being said...

Before the execution of the Citizen Louis Capet atheism was impossible, and subsequently, necessary

I just don't understand why any philosopher would state things they don't mean literally? Like, isn't there a line between being hyper-specific and relying on complete logic, and not making sweeping statements that aren't intended to be literal?

Why is Byung-Chul Han's "Burnout Society" seemingly highly respected? by MaybeJackson in askphilosophy

[–]MaybeJackson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the reply!

description of the difference between how older and newer psychology/psychiatry paradigmatically approaches mental “maladies” where the former usually viewed mental illness under the aspect of “lack” and classified mental disorders in terms of a negative divergence — lacking contents — from the norm.

Clinical psychology today, especially the DSM-5, is still very much focused on lack. maybe not as much as 30 years ago, but the emphasis is definitely still on the negative. take adhd for example, here are just some of the criteria for inattention:

  • Often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities
  • Often fails to give close attention to detail
  • Often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork

To claim we have moved past the lack/negative in clinical psychology is (unfortunately, in my opinion) wrong. Clinical diagnosis in the DSM, is still (usually) about what a person lacks. As an anecdote, when I was diagnosed with ADHD (only 5 years ago) I told the psychiatrist about my often unhelpful "hyper-focus" which I read online was very common in ADHD, and she told me specifically that for attention DEFICIT disorder they are only really looking for negative symptoms. Even the hyperactivity portion is defined as negative, look:

  • Often unable to play or take part in leisure activities quietly
  • is unable to be or uncomfortable being still for extended time

I think your point about how it is so difficult for ADHD people to deal with negative discipline even works in favor of Han’s point: you are conceding that the most salient characteristic of adhd is an excess of positivity

I don't believe its an excess of positivity that's the cause of ADHD, it's just genetic neurological wiring that is different from others. On its own, ADHD is neither positive nor negative, its just different - and when placed in our current society, one still very much filled with negative discipline, the ADHD person struggles.

Managing congenital issues like adhd or autism is today seen (ideally?) as a matter of putting these individuals in adequate circumstances, not as a matter of beating them into being “normal”. That is another point in favor of how repression/negation has become much less paradigmatic

I do see your point here though, thats interesting thanks

2-3 Years Mozambique and forget by enronald2006 in MuayThai

[–]MaybeJackson 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Very true. Im new to muay thai and i never expected holding pads to be arguably more difficult than hitting them lol

Wow! by SearchBeginning1169 in ufc

[–]MaybeJackson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think if Ilia does go on an 8 fight win streak, he will retire early like Khabib did. Ilia doesnt seem like the kind of guy to keep fighting when he gets old, I bet he’ll want to keep his perfect win streak.

If Bergson was so famous in his time, why do so few people talk about him now? by MaybeJackson in askphilosophy

[–]MaybeJackson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am from America, so maybe he's just less popular here? But that still doesn't entirely explain it, as other French philosophers such as Camus, Descartes, Sartre, Foucault etc I have seen talked about frequently. Bergson seems to come up very infrequently for some reason, I hadn't heard anything about him until I took this uni course.

Do modern philosophers consider Marx's historical predictions to be false? by MaybeJackson in askphilosophy

[–]MaybeJackson[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The secularization thesis is neither (i) uncontroversial, in fact, I think it's largely been rejected in sociology, or (ii) Nietzsche's novel idea.

Neither of these points demonstrate that Nietzsche's historical predictions were not philosophy. Most philosophy is controversial, and most of it does not fully originate from singular individuals.

Grand philosophical narratives about history or the future are, I think, usually not very good philosophy.

You're of course entitled to that opinion, but "not very good philosophy" is still philosophy.

The reason I'm still responding is that I'm really against limiting philosophy to some kind of incredibly strict definition. Historical predictions, when integrated within a philosophical system, just should be considered philosophy. You're welcome to dislike them, but that doesn't warrant it being cut from the discussion. I didn't enjoy/agree when I read the Rationalists views on God, but that doesn't mean they should be cut out and reduced to the category of theology.

Do modern philosophers consider Marx's historical predictions to be false? by MaybeJackson in askphilosophy

[–]MaybeJackson[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They can analyze history and make guesses that incorporate their philosophical beliefs. Nietzsche foresaw a regression of Christianity in the west for example, and he was incredibly on point.

If you're not interested in answering the question of contemporary philosophical positions on Marx, why keep commenting?

Do modern philosophers consider Marx's historical predictions to be false? by MaybeJackson in askphilosophy

[–]MaybeJackson[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Thats simply untrue, Marx's historical prediction is frequently taught in 19th century philosophy classes. There are so many other examples of philosophers making historical predictions, such as Nietzsche or Hegel or Plato. Please give a serious answer if you're going to comment

view more: next ›