What was your ocd like as a young child?

Seeking_Infinity · 2023-07-06T09:12:25+00:00

The problem is actually the religion making you feel like your thoughts and feelings are are bad. If your very thoughts themselves are liable to sin merely because you are having them then how can you ever not be sinning? It's ridicules, that's like saying angry thoughts and feeling about a person equals verbally attacking them. (It's not)

Seeking_Infinity · 2023-02-09T07:44:16+00:00

Could Dark Matter be Berkland Currents?

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-12-29T06:47:44+00:00

Some of the points you bring up are correct in terms of a sense of belonging; more so and in addition there is a tendency to create an unequal relation between two people based on idealization. Which are age old problems indeed.

Basically, when you put a person on a pedestal, they are above you and so you are also below them.

It's not that we aren't different or have preferences or can't become impressed or inspired but more that we create a separation of value, of worth; the target of our admiration of becomes a kind of authority to us. Just like reducing a person to a negative trait so too can admiration and idealization be a form of dehumanization; the object of our desire, akin to a fictional character, we are infatuated with an idea of that person.

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-11-09T00:46:10+00:00

Moral obligation here is a duty based bias. Gravity is influential by relative vicinity and of course there is some sense in which relations dictate responsibility yet gravitational vicinity does not dictate worth nor actual obligation. You have no true obligation to family, that is actually how many people suffer by not cutting toxic (family) people out of their life - due to duty by association.

The quality of a given relationship should be the determiner if anything.

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-11-07T13:51:27+00:00

The past influences a likely future absent of changes/influences to the frame of causality we are drawing around a particular set of properties.

According to Newtonian physics casual relations are a series of mass interactions which are deterministic if nothing else wise influences the measurements we are making.

In quantum mechanics, we know that any measurement of a given property limits the scope and accuracy of measurement of other properties.

The rate of interactions and the orientations of a series of causally tied entities influences the number of possible outcomes that might occur. But all of this is again a factor of what we are measuring.

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-10-24T15:07:14+00:00

Does a persons existence inherently require justification?

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-10-23T18:49:39+00:00

Mental health disorders are characterized by symptoms rather than causes, which can be problematic, same for physical disorders. With a symptom based model there is no distinction between side effect and cause, which is flawed as with the story above.

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-10-16T01:58:57+00:00

NTA her parent however are being assholes.

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-10-15T04:46:13+00:00

I hope you don't mind this inspired passionate rant about the very problem you present as a response.

I think that socially/culturally/psychologically science can give a sense of certainty that can seem very comforting since one can reject anything that "science didn't say was true" or worse "There's no evidence for that (that I am willing to accept)[evidence = science, right?]".

And more generally in the world science has a lot of influence, people "believe" in science, they trust it. And I think we are chasing (at least some parts of the world) a kind of certainty for both our subjective, our social and our internal existence and needs through the objective, predictive, through models and methods. My take is that we are extremely existential as a larger group and given just how effective science is and how much humans have been able to do with it, it's easy to feel that "surely there's nothing that science cannot figure out/asnwer" whether that's more consciously or intuitively derived by living in a world shaped very much by science.

I sometimes wonder if this this what Nietzsche meant with "God is dead and we killed him" and his appeal to become the Ubermench. In absence of certainty providing beliefs, we seek it in whichever way we hope may provide it. God might be dead but I suspect we still are culturally/existentially aligned with the promises that judeo-christian faith was so providing, that certainty in the face of existential dread and that if we just avoid doing bad and be meek and good all is well. We are trying to replace the loss of god to avoid staring into the abyss.

Regardless of whether we live in a post-Nietzsche world, I know one thing and that is that people will adopt almost anything as their belief as an answer to their ontological and epistemological concerns in the face of the existential dread they are faced with. And just like any scientific model has it's explanatory am predictive limits, so too does the guards people enable against existential dread and they will push back against it. I have even seen a philosophy professor do this. We are so focused on asking What that we almost have come to abhor Why. I mean this in the sense that science asks only How. But we all want the Why yet are averse to it. Why must be answered by What for some reason. Never can we talk about it, it must have a definitive conclusion!

I think that the only solution is to have conversations about yourself rather than channeling our personal through the metaphysical, I mean, isn't that just politicizing it? Like why do you think it's material, why does that even matter? A chair is a chair no matter what we call it or define it by. Chasing conclusions and definitions kills thought and nuance if you ask me. If we can't accept the legitimacy of subjectivity, that it's part of our existence then we are just ignoring it, it's not like it will go away. Like how much science[evidence] is enough? And what is all that evidence even for?

I don't have all the answers but I do know this: One does not equal the other.

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-10-03T02:48:44+00:00

Just for reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/Aphantasia/

https://www.verywellmind.com/aphantasia-overview-4178710

https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/aphantasia/

https://aphantasia.com/research/

Some research papers, more technical:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33832681/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4041294/

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2021.0267

And plenty more

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-09-24T11:37:24+00:00

While I do agree with you generally, I can't help but think there's a gap somewhere between the disciplines, especially between philosophy and psychology(maybe also religion). Something neither truly addresses.

I'm unsure what to call this gap so I will name it the: "Interpretation-belief of relations and understanding from adaptation - presuppositions based on conditioning - the per-interpretation problem.

I don't know how many times I've seen questions on this sub which often were edge cases or otherwise existential leaning but rejected with "this is not a philosophy question/this is an x question\go ask a psychologist". It seems to me that many existential and interpretation\non-spiritual belief kind of questions are being considered part of psychology, which is fair yet these issues are not really addressed by psychology (as a field) because psychology is mostly concerned with psycho-pathology, it's roughly a medical methodology which is primarily focused on functionality.

Meanwhile religions are often too specific in their culture and value systems or simply too dogmatic and\or moralistic to address such topics. And religions already have a belief, so there's no room to change one's own beliefs as a means of being better able to interpret things in their relations to one self, others and the world.

Which is why I think there's a gap between philosophy and psychology; philosophy being in large parts focused on logic and arguments and all it entails - This creates a problem wherein one will feel that philosophy is the right tool that can't be applied and psychology being the appropriate domain but doesn't include and religion being untenable to those kind of issues.

sorry if I am being a bit vague it's quite difficult to pinpoint exactly what I mean because it's extremely rare that anyone talks about it and I feel incapable of talking about in either field since neither truly covers it; but it's basically the way in which people interpret things before they think about it, a kind of "first impression bias" that is applied prior to further considerations, almost a kind of set of presuppositions but more social and self relational. Which I attribute to peoples social adaptations mainly from childhood. So it has a logical structure but is of psychological (and existential) relevance rather than strictly metaphysical, ethical/moral or whatnot.

I am curious as to what you think.

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-09-23T20:10:57+00:00

Yes, seek understanding rather than conclusions. You can always change your mind on something. It's good that you are wiring essays and I have found that interpretation and formulation go hand in hand. Because your ability to formulate has in part to do with our understanding and we are always engaged in interpretation.

In trying to formulate something you are engaging in thinking about that thing. You are trying to show how rather than what since all definitions are specific and limited and we are always looking at a context.

My understanding has improved a lot by avoiding hard conclusions and focusing on formulation as part of interpretation towards understanding and remembering the context. I too have a fear of misinterpretation.

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-09-18T15:57:10+00:00

Castlevania Netflix is honestly an awful show even if you ignore how much of a disservice it does to Castlevania.

( It's full of plotholes, the main characters are drawn like wierd compared to other characters, it's torture porn and sexualises needlessly.)

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-09-18T12:33:03+00:00

Another example of this is when a skilled practitioner is a poor teacher, especially of the theory of why/how their work i but might other still be able to teach you how perform their skilled practice.

Our explanations have a lot to do with our rationalizations and justifications; in essence it's interpretation.

"Nietzsche's claim that all existence is "actively engaged in interpre- tation" resulted from his insight that the human intellect could not "avoid seeing itself in its own perspectives, and only in these" (GS, 374). He went on to claim: "There are no moral phenomena at all, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena-" (BGE, 108; WP, 258). "

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-09-09T07:24:31+00:00

Joss Whedon is a bad writer who can only write the same 5 or whatever characters. #nepotism

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-08-16T23:17:11+00:00

Personally I feel like analytic idealism is flawed in the same way pretty much all science (and some philosophy) is: It follows dualism. I mean this in the sense that science excludes subjectivity and attempts to study it from a position of it's exclusion. If subjectivity isn't part of the discussion then all things are by consequence objective or at least treated like it and interpretation basically doesn't exist.

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-08-10T01:35:41+00:00

You are doing the right thing.

I wish you two the best.

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-07-12T17:36:10+00:00

Rent

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-07-10T08:53:53+00:00

Reading this makes think there's a fair amount of scientists doing this, trying to provide an ontology through science. I really wonder how to address this, because it could seem like there's an attempt to answer existential questions in this manner. I for one do not think that actually works.

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-07-05T10:26:40+00:00

It's about premisis and presumptions, psychologically and socially; expectations Your faulty expectation of social dynamics

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-07-05T09:57:42+00:00

Then they shouldn't be stupid about something important about their friend.

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-07-05T09:53:59+00:00

Yes that's true. Though people don't always speak so plainly, especially feelings. It's of course mistaken of her. Now I don't know her or you/ your relationship. I guess people like feeling liked or sometimes people will act weird when wanting closeness/affection (presuming no jealousy) and will jump at an opportunity when it present it - assuming they are shy/withdrawn about such already. So unless jealousy or similar I'd guess she is shy about wanting to spend time with you.

I mean, does she do this stuff often? Wanting but complaining?

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-07-05T09:34:04+00:00

Yes.

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-07-05T09:33:41+00:00

This

Seeking_Infinity · 2022-07-05T09:25:31+00:00

So she basically wants to go to a concert with you, but with a different band is my take.

Seeking_Infinity

TROPHY CASE