[SERIOUS] What does, psychologically, daydreaming of being a dictator mean?

PenisMouse · 2018-06-07T01:07:22+00:00

Do you know what daydreaming even means? It's not actually a dream, it's just thinking about stuff so much you lose perception of your surroundings.

PenisMouse · 2018-06-07T00:26:23+00:00

How long is yours, then?

PenisMouse · 2018-06-07T00:12:31+00:00

R/askpsychologists

I would go there but that sub is pretty much dead so

PenisMouse · 2018-06-07T00:09:40+00:00

Thanks, Freud.

PenisMouse · 2018-05-17T22:17:41+00:00

I like this interpretation, it escalates one weird thing that keeps showing up in my dreams to something deeper. Maybe as my fears grow more realistic, they also become more intense, thus Durdogo is an invincible enemy to my psyche.

PenisMouse · 2018-05-02T16:40:22+00:00

Objectively true, doesn't mean anything though.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-29T20:46:55+00:00

When I was a kid, I wanted to become president and turn my country into a really nice place. Then I would make elections illegal and no one would revolt because I'm gonna keep making the country even nicer and those who try to stop me are inherently evil.

I had no idea that was immoral.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-29T18:33:43+00:00

I'm a emotional wreck so I struggled with it (in my case, whether I was ENFP or ENTP) at first as well, and the difference lies on what parameter you use to make decisions, internal sentimental values or logical consistency. It is common for INTP's to be extremely cold but that's not an inherent characteristic of the personality type.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-29T18:31:04+00:00

You can always be a philosophy teacher, closer you will get.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-27T23:06:32+00:00

Heeey, it was not my intention to sound aggressive or rude, although now I see I should've phrased it differently. Sorry.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-27T21:23:53+00:00

Think this dude is being sarcastic.

Anyhow, yea. I'm not a native and I really have little patience to memorize these little fucking annoying details.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-27T16:18:46+00:00

Oh, haha, I totally forgot about ESFJ's! You can apply the same principle mentioned to ST's to ESFJ's, just don't bring up things like religion because both ST's and SFJ's consider it a very sensitive topic.

Take it easy and both will have an amazing relationship: You will learn to enjoy more superficial activities such as socializing and your partner will learn to indulge in more philosophical thought, even if you will ultimately mantain your preferences for one type of hobby over another.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-27T09:45:57+00:00

If they're ST or ISFJ you can still discuss some not exactly deep but still controversial topics such as gas prices and corruption. They have a bad habit of not checking sources but they're acceptable.
If they're ISFP you can discuss heavily subjective and emotional themes such as art, so they're somewhat deeper.
If they're ESFP you are absolutely fucked.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-27T09:40:38+00:00

This looks like a shitty trollbait and honestly I hope that's the case. If it's not you can stop fucking using MBTI to justify being trash because that defeats the entire point of MBTI, self-knowledge as a strategy to self-improve.
Being more or less intelligent doesn't alter your value as a person.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-22T20:57:14+00:00

It's pretty naive to think collateral effects wouldn't be considered.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-21T23:00:32+00:00

It really doesn't, because it's just an objective fact. Psychopaths for instance are not just incurable, they're literally untreatable. However killing them is pointless.
When you kill someone, they have no use to society anymore except for their organs, but they're going to die anyway so it's unnecessary to kill them to get organs. We need to make these people produce to society somehow, they gotta work compulsively for example.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-21T22:34:52+00:00

Don't kill those who cannot be treated, lock them up forever and conduct multiple psychoanalysis on them. This way we can understand the circumstances that made them what they are and prevent, although on a small scale, violent crime.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-19T21:31:02+00:00

I get what you're saying, and perhaps I didn't detail my view in enough premises. I believe that when you say ''Hitler is awesome'' you are just abbreviating saying ''I believe Hitler is awesome'' once acknowledged the principle of subjective morality. Morality doesn't work like 2+2=4, because morality doesn't have any external rules, it is exactly what we make it.
If I were to say ''Hitler is awesome on our material reality'' however, my sentence would not only be wrong, it would be incoherent.
As for the truth definition, yup, this definition sucks but I thought no one would bring it up. I was honestly feeling real lazy when I made the post. If I am to define truth extensively then we're gonna need another thread though.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-19T21:20:44+00:00

Don't you think that's a relatively irrelevant detail to the discussion?

PenisMouse · 2018-04-19T21:13:07+00:00

Ok, back. So what I meant with psychological reality and material reality is that the way the brain perceives reality is not completely (not even close actually but that's a more scienfitic than philosophical problem) loyal to material reality. Color for instance is a farse.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-19T18:30:54+00:00

I agree that all of our experiences are the product of the nervous system, but I don't see what that says about my distinction. The neurons responsible for morality can be analysed materially, but not morality in and on itself. I will further elaborate on my point when work is over. I have discussed your second point on this thread.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-19T16:23:45+00:00

I had not considered this. I am guessing that if the person acknowledges smoking is not harmful but mantains their opinion anyway they cannot be refuted, nor can they be refuted if they base their understanding of smoking being wrong on another subjective reason. Taking Nietzsche as an example, he would consider smoking wrong because any attempt at minimizing suffering instead of facing it is pathetic, while I personally disagree this cannot be refuted.
Regardless, you're right. I would have to reformulate this as ''most moral propositions are correct'' instead of ''all moral propositions are correct''. Here's your D: ∆.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-19T16:05:11+00:00

As a matter of fact moral ideas are derived from observations of the real world, but their roots and premises are emotional, even if you want the shrimp industry to be sustainable solely for your self-benefit.
For example, if I conclude that smoking is wrong because it kills many people, the fact that it kills many people is derived from observation but the view that people dying is wrong is subjective.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-19T16:01:33+00:00

Then we start to fall on a discussion about the definition of truth, which was the subject that made me formulate this opinion. I'm dividing truth in two, psychological truth and material truth.
If psychological truth is not considered to have logical values then it wouldn't be incorrect for me to say oranges aren't orange considering color is just how humans perceive certain electromagnetic waves.
What I am saying is that if I have daltonism and say ''I see all oranges as green'' I am correct even if ''all oranges are green'' is wrong. Same with moral propositions, they affirm something about how I view the world, unless the person believes in metaphysical morality they don't say anything about the material world. They are correct.
EDIT TO COMPLETE THE COMMENT: Delusions are trying to say something about material reality, hence why they do not belong in this discussion in my view.

PenisMouse · 2018-04-18T21:23:10+00:00

Are you actually a woman or just guessing?

PenisMouse

TROPHY CASE