/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4721268]

Do any philosophers deal with the purpose of human emotional insecurity or is that purely something psychology deals with?

pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.4721282]

>>4721268


its something ive look around for myself op, and though there are some that imply such things, im starting to think ill have to do something about it myself for something explicit..

of course, the history of thought is often also a history of rationalization, the more solipsistic/autistic thinkers cannot help but espouse notions that conveniently exculpate their foibles or validate their choices heretofore.

[Anonymous No.4721284]

>>4721282
Who are the best autistic philosophers? Stirner? Schopenhauer? Evola?

[Anonymous No.4721285]

>>4721282
>>4721284
I didn't even look at your image before I posted that, how fitting.

[Anonymous No.4721286]

>>4721282
I find it difficult to believe that none have explicitly touched on it.

[Anonymous No.4721299]

>>4721284


id say the best autists were guenon, leibniz, hmm lets say witty too, i personally like schops but hes also a bit of a fag, so i cant give him a wholly clean endorsement, evola is more like a school jock.

[Anonymous No.4721302]

>>4721268
Epicurus' whole goal was to establish a state of mental quietude free from distress. Worth looking into.

Wittgenstein is also referred to as therapeutic because he's in the taking away false questions business instead of trying to answer them, I believe.

[Anonymous No.4721310]

It's a problem of science and not philosophy. Anxiety is cured by neuropharmacology and not by empty talk.

[Anonymous No.4721315]

>>4721284
>>4721299
Schopenhauer was far from an autist, his whole life work was a justification for his feels and he did nothing but playing the flute and going to the theatre.

[Anonymous No.4721323]

>>4721268

As far as philosophy goes, Alan Watts is good for that. See picrelated.

Most of the worthwhile reading is in the field of Psychoanalysis, however.

>>4721310

Oh look, bait.

[Anonymous No.4721326]

>>4721323
He's right though. A lot of problems that are traditionally the domain of philosophy can or will soon be able to be solved medically.

[Anonymous No.4721327]

>>4721315


thats pretty autistic behavior m8 ('autist' doesnt mean 'emotionless').

[Anonymous No.4721330]

>>4721323
No "bait" in my post. Swallowing a pill is a more efficient and more effective treatment for anxiety than reading a lot of vague philosophical twaddle.

[Anonymous No.4721342]

>>4721326


you dont seem to understand what 'insecurtity' means (insecurity is the reason its always them, not you, and ssris wont fix that perception [maby if you invent 'smart pills' instead, but any resulting change in perception would be accidental, in aristotelian terms]).

[Anonymous No.4721349]

>>4721342
>implying the perception doesn't follow the anxious state rather than the other way around

Rationalisations are a posterio, friend.

[Anonymous No.4721350]

>>4721330

And addressing the source of your anxiety at a local level is more effective, cheaper, and more fulfilling than popping pills.

>>4721326

And I'll say a lot of problems that are traditionally the domain of medicine will soon be able to be solved philosophically. But that might upset you.

[Anonymous No.4721353]

>>4721342
>implying the perception doesn't follow the anxious state rather than the other way around

Rationalisations are a posteriori, friend.

[Anonymous No.4721354]

>>4721342
⇒ssri

SSRI are antidepressants. Try anxiolytics instead, e.g. benzodiazepines. And if you're having paranoid delusions, get yourself prescribed antipsychotics.

[Anonymous No.4721355]

>>4721350
>And I'll say a lot of problems that are traditionally the domain of medicine will soon be able to be solved philosophically. But that might upset you.
Not at all, please elaborate.

[Anonymous No.4721356]

>>4721349


yes they are, and the anxiety naturally follows from the insecurity (admission of fault or error would be devalidation, and for the narcissistic solipsist, devalidation is death).

[Anonymous No.4721358]

>>4721356
Insecurity follows naturally from the anxiety.

[Anonymous No.4721365]

>>4721358


thats simply counterfactual friend, your sense of causality is fucked by your inability to concede a point that threatens your belief system (you know, insecurity), youre just plain wrong, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, reflect on your lifes choices.

[Anonymous No.4721366]

>>4721354

I thought I smelled you.

>>4721355

Mixing up neurochemistry-soup-for-the-soul is a band-aid solution. Self-awareness of neuropsychophysical processes and deficits trumps this. Simplistic modelization via epistemological insights and reorganization efforts affords us more viable solutions that don't defer to an exterior source for aid.

>>4721358

And anxiety follows [naturally] from insecurity. Why are you claiming this is a one-sided road?

[Anonymous No.4721369]

>>4721350
⇒And addressing the source of your anxiety at a local level is more effective, cheaper, and more fulfilling than popping pills.
Pills are much cheaper than psychotherapy. A single session of psychotherapy costs more than an annual amount of pills and is less effective. It is possible that psychotherapy yields no results at all, even after a thousand sessions. Pills on the other hand are guaranteed to have biochemical effects.

⇒And I'll say a lot of problems that are traditionally the domain of medicine will soon be able to be solved philosophically. But that might upset you.
What a load of bullshit. Since the 19th century philosophy has been losing all significance. Notably in the topic you're talking about the trend is the exact opposite of what you're describing. Methods of psychotherapy tend to include more and more results of neurobiology and to leave behind pseudo-scientific concepts of the past like e.g. psychoanalysis.

[Anonymous No.4721373]

>>4721365
You could also say that your sense of causality is fucked by your inability to let go of folk psychology that doesn't have much to back it up apart from widespread belief.

>>4721366
>Mixing up neurochemistry-soup-for-the-soul is a band-aid solution. Self-awareness of neuropsychophysical processes and deficits trumps this. Simplistic modelization via epistemological insights and reorganization efforts affords us more viable solutions that don't defer to an exterior source for aid.
So you're saying philosophy will replace psychiatric medication?

>And anxiety follows [naturally] from insecurity. Why are you claiming this is a one-sided road?
I'm simply distrustful of the notion that emotional states are a result of conceptual notions such as insecurity rather than the other way around. But I agree that the notion of insecurity can perpetuate anxiety, I just don't think it's merely the direct cause of it. I don't think conceptually dismantling the notion of insecurity will remove anxiety.

[Anonymous No.4721375]

>>4721355
All psychiatric care is a means of normalization, necessarily. It isn't any different to imagine a society without therapy than a society without criminals. In the Middle Ages, for example, suicidal depressives were taken on pilgrimages. The modern treatment is to put them in a box under observation. Treatment is good but it's also a good way to condemn people.

[Anonymous No.4721389]

>Pills are much cheaper than psychotherapy.

I never mentioned psychotherapy.

>What a load of bullshit. Since the 19th century philosophy has been losing all significance.

This is meaningless and short-sighted.

>>4721373

>So you're saying philosophy will replace psychiatric medication?

It's a lot more nuanced than that -- there are still those issues caused by physical deficiencies which would more likely be addressed at the biogenetic level -- but yes, essentially, that is what I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.4721390]

>>4721389
>>4721373

>I'm simply distrustful of the notion that emotional states are a result of conceptual notions such as insecurity rather than the other way around.

You're making the mistake that it has to be one or the other. Why can't it go both ways?

[Anonymous No.4721402]

>>4721389
Name one mental illness (ICD or DSM) which is better treated with "philosophy" than with methods based on neurobiology. I'm waiting.

[Anonymous No.4721404]

>>4721373


heres some 'philosophical twaddle' that im sure a mid-wit can understand, its called the 'principle of sufficient reason'. things dont just happen for 'no reason', this magical 'anxiety' you speak of that you seem to think is prior to all phenomena does not come from nowhere, nor is it foundational to being. the narcissistic rationalizations of a conditional solipsist are not mere affectations, they are *all it can do*, that is their capacity for transcendent reasoning (which is to say, not much of a capacity).

so i reiterate, were not talking about pills that will fix NPD unless were talking about pills that increase g-factor, but in which case, the efficient cause of the change in perception/conceptual understanding would indeed be a philosophical epiphany, stemming from a greater ability in world formation.

[Anonymous No.4721409]

>>4721404
Could you post that in your native language? The result of the google translator you just copypasted is incoherent gibberish.

[Anonymous No.4721413]

>>4721390
I already said I agreed that entertaining the notion of insecurity can perpetuate anxiety, but insecurity itself is merely an attempt at conceptualisation of the notion of anxiety. Anxiety was there first. Just like we had nightmares before we blamed the devil for them.

[Anonymous No.4721415]

>>4721409


>im so confused and ignorant i even conflate insecurity with a feeling of anxiety, please rape my face.

[Anonymous No.4721420]

>>4721404
Sufficiency has nothing to do with this. People live in situations where acceptance is impossible and they aren't narcissistic or solipsistic or even particularly rational for it. It's disappointing that you're too insecure to speak clearly even when you think it's important to be heard.

[Anonymous No.4721421]

>>4721415
What other kind of "insecurity" are you talking about? Financial insecurity? Data insecurity? You're making no sense. Your ignorance of basic psychiatry and psychodynamics is not my fault. Educate yourself, moron.

[Anonymous No.4721427]

>>4721404
Are you sure you're referring to the right post? I never mentioned 'philosophical twaddle'.

[Anonymous No.4721435]

>>4721413

I'm not the guy that you're talking to, but I would claim that the place of every human in the world is insecure. We don't know if our loves will abandon us, or some illness or accident might take our lives, if our jobs will be terminated, or our homes destroyed by some disaster etc. The feeling of insecurity and the anxiety which is coincident with it, is, if not felt in excess, an appropriate and insightful reaction to the uncertainty that comes with living a human life. I would think that the absence of anxiety would impoverish our lives as we would no longer feel that emotion which informed our fathers of their place in the world. Removing it entirely would, I think, make us something less than human.

[Anonymous No.4721441]

>>4721330
You seem to fail to understand how stimulation of the brain by its physical and social surroundings offers a chance for far greater plasticity and behavioral modification when compared to some unselective drug targeting receptors and neural networks that our understanding of changes drastically on an almost weekly basis.

[Anonymous No.4721445]

>>4721435
Not the person you're replying to.

A normal person does NOT waste their time thinking about these things unless they are directly happening. General anxiety disorder is an abnormal conidition and requires treatment. Your religoius thinking is archaic and has no place in our modern society anymore.

[Anonymous No.4721447]

>>4721404
>g-factor
nice pseudo-science you got there

[Anonymous No.4721452]

>>4721441
Not him, but using pharmaceutics for these things are a temporary, sloppy solution. Brain implants are the way of the future.

[Anonymous No.4721456]

>>4721404
>kantianism
>2k14

[Anonymous No.4721469]

>>4721441
Why are you intentionally misinterpreting my post? I didn't say anything against neurobiological methods in psychotherapy. I was merely criticizing the utterly moronic position that "philosophy" was the best treatment for psychiatric/neurological disorders. The people ITT making this claim are just as anti-scientific as /x/tards claiming crystal healing was a better treatment for cancer than chemotherapy.

>>4721452
⇒him
nope

⇒brain implants
Stop wasting your time with silly sci fi fantasies for children. Brain implants are not a viable option, neither today nor in the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous No.4721474]

>>4721421


its really simple friend, 'insecurity' is basically the overriding reaction against (personal) devalidation. the more solipsistic, the more susceptible to insecurity.

how is it possible for a player in some form of competition to accumulate more and more experience, yet never improve? it is insecurity, unwilling or unable to countenance the idea of fault, and thus, unable to grow. for the solipsist, change is death.

[Anonymous No.4721479]

>>4721474
Please take your antipsychotic meds. In the meantime please keep your absurdities to >>>/x/. You have no education in psychiatry, psychotherapy, pharmacology or even philosophy. What you're posting is incoherent nonsense. You're contributing nothing to this discussion other than lowering its quality with your childish avatarfagging.

[Anonymous No.4721490]

>>4721479


i accept your admission of defeat.

[Anonymous No.4721493]

>>4721474
⇒solipsist

That word doesn't mean what you think it means. If you don't know the difference between "solipsism" and "narcissism", I can only laugh at you and redirect you to >>>/google/. Stop talking out of your ass, kid.

[Anonymous No.4721494]

>>4721445
>...if not felt in excess
>Removing it entirely would...

The OP didn't claim that the subject of the thread is a disordered level of anxiety, but speaking as someone with a disordered level, even high anxiety may be managed and used for insight. I'm not adverse altogether to the idea of treating extreme cases with medication, but anxiety is rarely so extreme that it needs to be treated in that manner.

Ordinary people experience anxiety in response to situations which allows their fundamental human insecurity come to stand. I claim that this emotional experience is valuable because it highlight the fact that the future is uncertain. You could even speak of it at an evolutionary level, but this is not my aim. Your attitude fails to acknowledge that emotions are meaningful and further, a sort of intelligence which guides us about the world intuitively. They must be subordinated by reason to be used effectively, but they remain a central facet of a good, meaningful life.

[Anonymous No.4721496]

>>4721402

You mean name one systematically demarcated mental state that can be empirically demonstrated to be "better" normalized through philosophical insight than the myopic fruits of reductionist inference?

I can't, not yet at least. I guess you win this one Yosemite.

>>4721413

It's a lot subtler than that. I'm referring to the neuropsychological basis of insecurity informing neuroendocrinal anxiety informing a conscious conceptualization of insecurity. This last bit is a displacement, but a fairly important one.

[Anonymous No.4721502]

>>4721493


i draw a distinction between conceptual solipsism (an affectation) and conditional solipsism (a description of quality, capacity for world formation in heideggerian terms). narcissism is the natural state of a conditional solipsist.

[Anonymous No.4721507]

>>4721502
You are not in the position to make up your own terminology. Psychiatry and psychotherapy already have their teminology. Learn it or shut the fuck up. This isn't your tumblr blog. If you talk like a retard, we'll treat you like a retard.

[Anonymous No.4721514]

>>4721494
⇒Your attitude fails to acknowledge that emotions are meaningful and further, a sort of intelligence which guides us about the world intuitively

How blinded by your own bias do you have to be to misinterpret my post like that? Where did I ever deny the evolutionary purpose of emotions?

[Anonymous No.4721517]

>>4721507
>Muh authority

I don't need to consult or agree with your priests to argue against your retarded claims.

[Anonymous No.4721521]

>>4721517
I haven't yet seen a single "argument" from you. Tell me more about how you believe science is wrong because it contradicts your kindergarten tier world view.

[Anonymous No.4721525]

>>4721507


this thread was made to begin with on the premise that this area of thought is vaguely defined and lacks great coverage. a certain level of neologism is necessary and inevitable to explore concepts and reify the ideas being communicated.

[Anonymous No.4721526]

>>4721517
I'm scared of institutions too

[Anonymous No.4721527]

>>4721521
>Tell me more about how you believe science is wrong

This is not the argument at hand retard. For being on the side of logic (lol) and knowledge, you sure like constructing men of straw and being generally dogmatic.

[Anonymous No.4721533]

>>4721525
Why should I respect your wrong premise? If you start a thread on the premise that creationism is true and evolution is wrong, that doesn't make your beliefs less retarded. If the OP presents an utterly anti-scientific position, it is just natural to correct him.

[Anonymous No.4721539]

>>4721527
Post one argument that is neiter "hurr durr I'll call u dumb" nor "herp derp I want 2 believe". I'm waiting. So far these are the ony things you posted.

[Anonymous No.4721547]

>>4721539
Hunters hunt.

[Anonymous No.4721548]

>>4721514

You've missed my point. I'm not arguing that the emotions have evolutionary purpose, that's an ancillary proposition. "I claim that this emotional experience is valuable because it highlights the fact that the future is uncertain." It's not valuable because it has an evolutionary purpose, but because it allows us to build further knowledge of ourselves by making certain facets of human life apparent. To lose that emotional sense is akin to losing our eyesight, to make an analogy. It's impoverishment.

[Anonymous No.4721546]

>>4721533


your combative misapprehensions do you no credit. to the actual point, if the area DID have great coverage and coherent explication, the op would not need to make a thread asking after obscure examples.

[Anonymous No.4721552]

>>4721546
Are you saying the OP's ignorance makes science invalid? Entire branches of science become false just because a single moron doesn't understand them? Cool story, fucktard.

[Anonymous No.4721560]

>>4721548
⇒because it highlights the fact that the future is uncertain

You don't need abnormal emotions to reach such a shallow insight.

[Anonymous No.4721587]

>>4721552


you are being so juvenile, arguing in bad faith. youre leaping to conclusions that do not necessarily follow just for the sake of contradiction (im not speaking for the other guys however). which happens to be a perfect example of the pathologies of insecurity in the solipsist; purpose, goal, or ideal in debate becomes subordinated to the desire to 'win', to gain validation/avoid devalidation at all costs.

the sentiment of 'a pill will fix it' can itself be a defense mechanism; 'i dont need to change my way of thinking, ill just wait for the right formula to be invented'. except where does that leave one now, where has that left anyone in history? and i should point out, the ability to construct a formula for right thinking would be contingent on an understanding of right thinking a priori. you cant get what you dont know you want.

[Anonymous No.4721594]

>>4721587
>which happens to be a perfect example of the pathologies of insecurity in the solipsist; purpose, goal, or ideal in debate becomes subordinated to the desire to 'win', to gain validation/avoid devalidation at all costs

I feel you on this one, double space guy.

[Anonymous No.4721597]

>>4721560
>You don't need abnormal emotions to reach such a shallow insight.

You do need to have felt an emotion in excess to experience the ordinary as profound. The pairing of human beings in marriage might seem a shallow fact until one loves and the significance of the act of marriage comes to stand. It's the same in this case, a simple fact: "The future is uncertain.", is made important because of an emotional experience which allowed one to see it under a different glow.

The insight may seem shallow, but it is only because you are lacking sight.

[Anonymous No.4721599]

>>4721479
>You're contributing nothing to this discussion other than lowering its quality with your childish avatarfagging.

How ironic it is that you say this, yet keep needlessly using that arrow character to flaunt your posts.

[Anonymous No.4721601]

>>4721587
⇒solipsist

Why do you continue to use a word incorrectly even after it has been explained to you that it's wrong? Are you diagnosed with an intellectual disability?

[Anonymous No.4721602]

>>4721599
Shut up! Crazy arrow girl is my favorite avatar fag. She always plays hard to get, which is my fetich.

[Anonymous No.4721604]

>>4721597
⇒to experience the ordinary as profound
That's just newfaggotry. Once you grow older and more experienced, you won't consider platitudes profound anymore.

>>4721599
My posts are informative and factually correct. Formatting and typesetting is hardly the same as avatarfagging. Get your shit together. You even fail at making a "tu quoque" fallacy.

[Anonymous No.4721608]

>>4721601


the terms have already been defined here, youre going to have to do better than petty semantic niggling.

[Anonymous No.4721616]

>>4721608
We don't speak your private autism language. Use the accepted terminology of science or accept being ridiculed.

[Anonymous No.4721625]

>>4721616


that there isint a coherent 'accepted terminology' is part of the problem behind this thread.

p.s. 'consensus science' is not scientific.

[Anonymous No.4721630]

>>4721616
>>4721601

I understand him/her perfectly, on account of being well-versed in the philosophical history of the term.

You're the one being a simpleminded fag.

[Anonymous No.4721639]

>>4721268
The most most thorough way to deal with emotional insecurity is simply to do away with as much anxiety causing circumstances as possible and treat the inevitable ones by engaging in a praxis where you perpetually expose yourself to these situations to the point of becoming habituated to them. So askesis and "shame attacking".

This practically means doing away with everything superfluous (getting unnecessarily attached to the superfluous is a great cause of anxiety) and confronting your remaining fears head on. Throw away your trinkets, dump your girlfriend and make a fool of yourself in public until it doesn't trouble you to do so any more and you're well on your way to a robust mental state.

[Anonymous No.4721649]

>>4721604
>That's just newfaggotry. Once you grow older and more experienced, you won't consider platitudes profound anymore.

It's not the platitude, but the meaning which rests behind, in human life and in shared human experience of what is important. Moreover, the old have known the meaning of everything youthful, but their primary concerns have become the troubles of age. It's not that they do not experience anything as significant, but that the significance shifts away from those matters which come to stand in youth.

[Anonymous No.4721653]

>>4721604
>fallacy fallacy

You're the only one using that arrow character, and only for the reasons of attention and mental illness(es). It fully fits the description of avatarfagging. Stop breaking the rules, knucklehead.

[Anonymous No.4721668]

>>4721625
Your ignorance does not invalidate science. Don't talk out of your ass when you know nothing about the topic.

>>4721630
You don't need to be "well-versed" to understand a term every kid learns in school. He still used it incorrectly and just because it is possible to understand him, that doesn't make his posts less retarded.

[Anonymous No.4721687]

>>4721639
That's a very oversimplified description of cognitive-behavioural therapy.

>>4721649
Can you please post actual contents and stop posting empty talk? Talking like a fictional philosopher you made up for a middle school homework assignment doesn't make you appear deep or insightful.

>>4721653
I did never avatarfag. I did not post any pictures. Please get your definitions right.

[Anonymous No.4721697]

>>4721668

>he still used it incorrectly
No, he didn't actually.

In fact, it's very indicative of your solipsism that you went and looked for the first definition that backs up your idea of what it means and tried to impose that as a universal rule.

[Anonymous No.4721699]

>>4721687
>That's a very oversimplified description of cognitive-behavioural therapy.
It was actually more of a brief description of Cynicism whilst hinting at similarities with CBT.

[Anonymous No.4721704]

>>4721687

It's also indicative of your solipsism that you're this much of a captious attention whore.

[Anonymous No.4721706]

I think that a lot of philosophers wrote from a standpoint of emotional instability:

kant, any moral realist, bertrand russell

[Anonymous No.4721707]

>>4721687
>That's a very oversimplified description of cognitive-behavioural therapy.

Yeah it isn't pretentious like modern scientific writing. It's simple and easy to understand.

[Anonymous No.4721714]

>>4721697
>>4721704
"Solipsism" is a philosophical term, not a psychiatric or psychodynamic term, and it is not synonymous with "narcissism".

[Anonymous No.4721721]

>>4721687
>Can you please post actual contents and stop posting empty talk? Talking like a fictional philosopher you made up for a middle school homework assignment doesn't make you appear deep or insightful.

It's only empty because you are emotionally deficient or, otherwise, blinded by positive reductionism (which has the same effect as autism, sociopathy, narcissism, and other such emotional disorders which make it impossible to perceive social cues, understand colloquial language etc.).

[Anonymous No.4721722]

>>4721706
So you're saying philosophy is a product of mental illness? Makes sense.

[Anonymous No.4721727]

>>4721687
Time to read the rules, moron. You are posting the same character over and over again for the purpose of identification. That's avatarfagging. Do not use avatars or attach signatures to your posts. What don't you understand?

[Anonymous No.4721728]

>>4721714

It's also indicative of your solipsism that you're stubbornly asserting that this is absolutely the case.

[Anonymous No.4721731]

>>4721707
There is nothing pretentious in scientific writing. The scientific style is characterized by objectivity and conciseness. If anything is pretentious, then it's loquacious philosophical mumbo jumbo, intentionally kept vague and lacking any rigor.

[Anonymous No.4721734]

>>4721323
I highly recommend this book and "The Book" by alan watts.
Those two books helped me to cope with my anxiety

[Anonymous No.4721740]

>>4721668


you seem to understand how linguistics works, let me help you. http://kconrod.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/apologies-to-twitter-philologists/

a word like 'solipsist' is exosemantically heavy in this case; short, and carrying implications outside its denotation that require context to understand (which you seem ignorant of, 'any school kid' indeed).

>It is commonly known that words carry meaning on two levels: denotation, or strict, dictionary-level meaning, and connotation, or emotional association; but there is a third, exosemantic level. The word “eldritch”, for example, denotes otherworldliness and connotes a feeling of cosmic horror toward its referent; but it also exosemantically implies that its user has read Lovecraft. The word “liberty” is no different from the word “freedom’, The word “praxis” is no different from a certain definition of the word “practice” except in its exosemantic layer: “praxis” is heavy; “praxis” implies familiarity with—association with—the academic tradition that uses the word “praxis”.

[Anonymous No.4721745]

>>4721740 to not*

[Anonymous No.4721748]

>>4721722
Human conciousness is itself a mental illness. We have evolved this feature beyond functionality straight into the domain of perpetual torment.

[Anonymous No.4721749]

>>4721731
>The scientific style is characterized by objectivity and conciseness.

No it's a bunch of obscure symbols and aesthetic preferences of structure that only members of the super secret club can read. You need Neal "MEME GUY" Tyson To make it intelligible to ordinary people. It's neither clear or objective in its presentation, it's style choices, like muh mathematics. Get out of your ivory tower.

[Anonymous No.4721752]

>>4721740
There exists terminology in the scientific context which was made to describe these phenomena more concisely and more accurately. Use it. Abusing inappropriate terminology from a different field only indicates lack of education.


>>4721721
I understood it very well and it's still lacking any intellectual depth. Why are you proud of having written one paragraph in the style of a 13 year old who tries to be deeper than he actually is? If I were your teacher, I'd probably downgrade your homework for being too pretentious.

⇒sociopathy
Oh look, another word you don't understand. Sociopathy does not inhibit social interaction. On the contrary, as a self-diagnosed sociopath I can understand social situations better than others and use them for the purpose of manipulation since I'm lacking unnecessary and evolutionarily disadvantageous emotional obstacles like guilt or love.

[Anonymous No.4721763]

>>4721752


>There exists terminology in the scientific context which was made to describe these phenomena more concisely and more accurately.

there isint, as evidenced by your continued failure to produce such in lieu of continued ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.4721771]

>>4721748
I'll add that to my copypasta collection for the next time I'm trolling /b/ by pretending to be an edgy teenager. Thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.4721776]

>>4721763
I did. Read the thread. And it isn't my job to spoonfeed you things you can easily look up on google.

>>4721727
By definition an avatar is a picture. I did not post any pictures.

[Anonymous No.4721778]

>>4721771
>browsing /b/

you're not pretending

[Anonymous No.4721780]

>>4721776
>krishna is a picture

[Anonymous No.4721782]

>>4721752

I could start name dropping and using highly specific technical terms to elevate my discussion to a level that could only be understood by a handful of academics, but I don't want to do that because I wish to be understood.

>as a self-diagnosed sociopath
pic related

> I can understand social situations better than others
> I'm lacking unnecessary and evolutionarily disadvantageous emotional obstacles like guilt or love
pic related

BTW you've proven my analysis correct. Your inability to understand the meaning of my statements stems from an emotional blindness.

[Anonymous No.4721789]

>>4721782

Also shouldn't you be taking a pill to stop your illness according to your on arguments rather than using your disposition to see the world in a unique way that provides some advantage?

[Anonymous No.4721798]

>>4721782
Yeah she's like an autist who requires outside structures to understand, she can't see directly, intuitively. She's my opposite, she's so hot.

[Anonymous No.4721800]

>>4721782
Keep pretending, kiddo. We both know you don't have the education to keep up this debate. Hence why you resort to childish name calling and reaction images.

>>4721789
What mental illness? I have no mental illness. Are you projecting again?

[Anonymous No.4721804]

>>4721752
>self-diagnosed sociopath

[Anonymous No.4721819]

Wittgenstein's remakrs on psychology will deal with all that by correcting the conceptual confusions that lead to emotional distress.

Of course, in order to understand his writings on psychology you need to have read and understood the rest of his writings.

[Anonymous No.4721821]

>>4721776
Your definition is wrong.

[Anonymous No.4721838]

>>4721776


the closest you came was the assertion of a distinction between solipsism and narcissism (which ive not disputed, save by noting that one is a symptom of the other), and continued assertions that there is 'terminology' without elaboration. i should also point out how youre infact using an ordinary language sense of 'narcissism'.

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/10/the_story_of_narcissus.html
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/04/why_we_love_sociopaths.html

[Anonymous No.4721884]

emotional insecurity and the anxiety associated with it is your brain telling you to man the fuck up and fix something in your life.

basically you are living/behaving/acting incorrectly and your brain is pumping negative feelings into you. its like a pain

[Anonymous No.4721890]

>>4721838
⇒using an ordinary language sense of 'narcissism'.
No, I'm not. I'm using it as a scientific term.

Why do you link to the blog of a pseudo-intellectual wannabe keyboard warrior? It's cringeworthy and it has nothing to do with the discussion.

[Anonymous No.4721895]

>>4721890


in order to explain exosemantically heavy terms to autists, you need to 'unpack' them.

[Anonymous No.4721902]

>>4721895
What do you want me to "unpack"? What "exosemantic" of my post did you not understand?

[Anonymous No.4721905]

STOP FEEDING THE FUCKING TROLL.

[Anonymous No.4721913]

>>4721902


its *you* thats not understanding, obviously.

[Anonymous No.4721920]

>>4721913
Stop projecting.

[Anonymous No.4721924]

>>4721890

[Anonymous No.4721936]

>>4721920


youre so retarded

>i dont know thing i hate you
>here is how thing
>HURR PROJAKTON

i, on the other hand, understand what youre saying very well, which is to say, nothing. your argument from the beginning was basically 'fuck thinking, just hook yourself to a heroin drip #basedpharmacodynamics'. you have had nothing useful to offer to the op, expected utility is epsilon.

[Anonymous No.4721947]

>>4721936
⇒argumentum ad hominem

Address the points I made.

[Anonymous No.4721957]

>>4721924

Bill Nye is such an obnoxious autistic faggot.

[Anonymous No.4721963]

>>4721947
>argumentum ad verecundiam

You're not interested in discussion, you're interested in stubbornly reiterating your "point."

[Anonymous No.4721966]

>>4721947


why are you so squeamish about ad hom? is it not true? you certainly have not hesitated to partake in such pleasures this thread, to become affronted when the shiv turns on you, why, that is a rather terminal example of unreflection, how very solipsistic.

[Anonymous No.4721994]

>>4721963
I hate to repeat myself, but I cannot post more than the scientific truth. Your inability to understand this isn't my fault.

>>4721966
What perverted pleasure do you gain from pretending to be retarded?

[Anonymous No.4722005]

>>4721994


you know theres a saying, when a solipsist criticizes someone, they are telling you the most about themselves.

[Anonymous No.4722021]

>>4722005

[Anonymous No.4722030]

>>4722005
>inb4 you're still not using solipsism correctly