The Philospher's thread

[stephen55]

A problem in a clinical psychiatrist.....

Self-identity as something different from projected identity is the problem most people have. It might actually be a clinical problem in psychiatry.

People who's self-identity is very much different from their projected identity are definitely a problem in clinical psychiatry. It's also a problem around here. That said, the difference between self and projected identity can also be a problem for psychiatrists.

During my fourth year med school rotation in a psychiatric hospital, (...as a student...) a patient was admitted with a schizophrenic break. He had started as a born again type, gotten deeper into fundamentalism and according to his family, had started showing signs of delusions of grandeur. He disappeared from the radar and a few months later was found in a full blown schizophrenic state.

Not uncommon, religious aspects aside and usually the patient would be treated like any other acute case of schizophrenia. Except....the attending psychiatrist was an ordained minister of a very fundamentalist church (can anyone say Southern Baptist Convention?) and the shrink decided that prayer therapy was the order of the day.

When the patient failed to get better, or as the aging Freudian moron on staff was wont to say, refused to get better, our pious shrink decided to seek help from a distant colleague, who also was an ordained Baptist minister, who helpfully suggested low doses of propranolol, an beta-blocker used to control blood pressure at the time. (This was at the end stage of a practiced by few in psychiatry disaster called "ortho-molecular psychiatry".)

"A call was made" to the head of psychiatry at said institution and the patient was transferred to another hospital. Our pious shrink, who now probably felt like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis, was hauled up before Tissue and Audit (the hospital committee that looks into fuck ups) and recommendations were made. (He was suspended.)

 

[CharleyH]

The biggest problem with Paglia is the same problem that besets all women who think and talk about what they think about; They are female, therefore they are "female philosophers."

As opposed to men, who are philosophers of... religion, economy, morality, snake oil, etc. There are no "male philosophers."

Interesting statement. I can't think of many female philosophers in history (although I can think of few who were put to death for thinking out loud). Women have a problem in that they are practically absent from history and philosophy until the 20th century. Women, like slaves, can never go back to undo what has been done.

Philosophically speaking, did the concept of one God retard the advancement of women?

 

[bflagsst]

Philosophically speaking, did the concept of one God retard the advancement of women?

India has a rich polytheistic history. The Enlightenment happened in India millennia before it happened in the West, and the women earned it through direct action and protest against the 'Enlightened One'. Still, the women of India were on par, more or less, with their Western counterparts in terms of equality up until the 19th Century. I think Industrialization and urbanization are what matters in terms of generating equality. It took longer for India to get in on industry, so they didn't get rights as quick. You need a larger workforce, obviously that means women need to work. Labor Unions and Marxism played a part in Indian history too, just later on.

So, I think to answer the question we would need a massive polytheistic society that gave rights to women long before the monotheistic West, just to start on the idea that there's a link between God worship and male domination. As far as I know there's no society of any significant number centered on Goddess worship at any time in world history, so that avenue doesn't seem as fruitful.

As a side note, Hypatia was killed by Christians, most likely for being a female with a voice. Her death is a pagan philosopher woman's death and a symbol of the end of the great thinkers of antiquity.

 

[trysail]

A Philosophical Genealogy:
Schopenhauer Nietzsche Mencken


Mencken: A Study of His Thought
Charles A. Fecher
New York, NY 1978

 

[LaRocha]

Nietzsche Heidegger Foucault

Nietzsche: Vols. 3 and 4 (Vol. 3: The Will to Power as Knowledge and as Metaphysics; Vol. 4: Nihilism)
Martin Heidegger (Author)

 

[stephen55]

It's called not doing your homework....

I swear, up and down, I had not seen this before I took a shot at Amicus over in the thread about abortion.

http://www.aolnews.com/world/articl...d-henri-levy-falls-for-literary-hoax/19351050

 

[LaRocha]

I swear, up and down, I had not seen this before I took a shot at Amicus over in the thread about abortion.

http://www.aolnews.com/world/articl...d-henri-levy-falls-for-literary-hoax/19351050

After Derrida and Althusser you get Lyotard after Lyotard you get Baudrillard, and it just gets more ridiculous from there. The French don't even have philosophers after Foucault, they all teach sociology and reading comprehension.

 

[Loring2]

Again

The title of the thread is "The Philospher's thread". I didn't choose the punctuation or spelling, I'm just referring, not giving a quality of the thread or its constituents. My thread would've been less horseplay and more zorseplay. I just googled it, it doesn't exist. I'm in the process of creating a new word.

The reason being of course that this isn't your thread

 

[ishtat]

Wot's in a name

Is name dropping the new fashionable philosophy?

 

[patrick1]

Yes I remember Baudrillard. The name, only the name.

 

[LaRocha]

Is name dropping the new fashionable philosophy?

You already know I'm going to eat your lunch, why bother? This thread started in the abortion thread, and if you read any of this thread you'd know no one wants to actually challenge the things I've said.

 

[LaRocha]

The reason being of course that this isn't your thread

This is my thread, Stella began it for me, Amicus, and Stephen55 to argue with each other. If you're not Stephen55, me, or Amicus, you're a guest on our thread. JamesBJohnson and everyone on Literotica are welcome on this thread, Loring, you are not.

 

[ishtat]

Ah, but since this is supposed to be a thread on philosophy .

My bolds added.

It isn't though liar, it's a thread about Philosophers though your assumption would make it much more interesting.

Studying, talking about or learning about Philosophy isn't doing Philosophy either. In my experience, few teachers let alone students have much capacity to philosophise themselves, rather they parrot the thinking of others.

 

[CharleyH]

India has a rich polytheistic history. The Enlightenment happened in India millennia before it happened in the West, and the women earned it through direct action and protest against the 'Enlightened One'. Still, the women of India were on par, more or less, with their Western counterparts in terms of equality up until the 19th Century. I think Industrialization and urbanization are what matters in terms of generating equality. It took longer for India to get in on industry, so they didn't get rights as quick. You need a larger workforce, obviously that means women need to work. Labor Unions and Marxism played a part in Indian history too, just later on.

So, I think to answer the question we would need a massive polytheistic society that gave rights to women long before the monotheistic West, just to start on the idea that there's a link between God worship and male domination. As far as I know there's no society of any significant number centered on Goddess worship at any time in world history, so that avenue doesn't seem as fruitful.

As a side note, Hypatia was killed by Christians, most likely for being a female with a voice. Her death is a pagan philosopher woman's death and a symbol of the end of the great thinkers of antiquity.

Interesting. Thanks, b. I'm as familiar as I can be with Hypatia, but I'm not as knowledgeable in regards to Eastern philosophers beyond the teachings of Siddhārtha Gautama. A question: do you know of any significant Eastern female philosophers? I would be interested in reading some of them if you have any suggestions.

 

[stephen55]

And now for something completely different...........

 

[stephen55]

Newfie Realism....

Three Newfies were sitting around the campfire, partaking in that quintessential Newfoundland activity....a cuppa tea in the woods....

First Newfie: The first rabbit I shot was a duck, and I hit it with a stick. (Newfie surrealism)

carry on........
*********************

I'm saddened and a bit tearful ( sigh...) that Newfie takes on philosophy haven't taken off. Up here in the Great White North, once you've learned to understand Newfie, you discover a rich and vibrant trove of philosophical gems...like this one on Newfie Realism.
*********************

Three Newfies were sitting around the campfire, telling stories and sucking back screech...

Second Newfie: By's, I wuz down Conception Bay ways...doin' some squiddin'. I cum in... fine feed a squid, fine feed....slippin' off me Tor Bay pantyhose...an' this fella cums up...'Mericun he wuz an' he sez he duz..."I uz just watchin' some scoooba divers," scoooba divers he sez, an' he sez "How cum they alluz fall backerds off the side a the boat?"

Now, what ya gonna do with a fella that thick? By tunderin' Jezaas by's...what ya gonna do? So I figurs I gotta set 'im straight...straight like...else, how's he gonna know...how's he gonna know? So I tells 'im...I tells 'im, "It's like this by', like this'," I tells 'im, " Cuz if they fell forerds off the side a the boat...they'd still be in the fuckin' boat, now wouldn't they!!"

 

[bflagsst]

My bolds added.

It isn't though liar, it's a thread about Philosophers though your assumption would make it much more interesting.

Studying, talking about or learning about Philosophy isn't doing Philosophy either. In my experience, few teachers let alone students have much capacity to philosophise themselves, rather they parrot the thinking of others.

I wouldn't presume that I know enough philosophy to philosophize in any serious way at this moment or for the foreseeable future. I think I might know more about Kierkegaard than anyone I've ever come into contact with, but that doesn't really put me in a position to philosophize on Christian existentialism. Professors are meant to parrot ideas to undergrads, if you've ever been in a graduate course the professors will challenge you to think for yourself against the great ones.

I'm interested in writing stories, I don't think I'm in any position to go out and write a novel. I know of successful novelists who stopped writing and read the entire canon twice over because they felt inadequate while writing their second. I think I know enough about poetry to keep writing it.

 

[bflagsst]

Interesting. Thanks, b. I'm as familiar as I can be with Hypatia, but I'm not as knowledgeable in regards to Eastern philosophers beyond the teachings of Siddhārtha Gautama. A question: do you know of any significant Eastern female philosophers? I would be interested in reading some of them if you have any suggestions.

That's a tough one. Near East and Far East isn't really something I studied outside of mythology. I couldn't say that much about any philosopher of the East, save for Nagarjuna. I'd also be interested if anyone has anything to say of female philosophers from the East.

 

[CharleyH]

Self-identity as something different from projected identity is the problem most people have. It might actually be a clinical problem in psychiatry.

People who's self-identity is very much different from their projected identity are definitely a problem in clinical psychiatry. It's also a problem around here. That said, the difference between self and projected identity can also be a problem for psychiatrists.

You raise an interesting query or two in the above statements that could well go toward establishing a philosophy on contemporary experience and existence, imo.

The Internet is an odd and unusual place and certainly most classical philosophers couldn't have foreseen such a beast. However, self-identity vs. projected identity isn't new, and I doubt most people posting to Lit have a clinical problem in this regard. I think people posting online are very aware of the differences between them and their avatar, for example.

Theatre might be a better starting point, but cinema is a fantastic one for any discussion regarding projected identity. Christian Metz, and especially Jean-Louis Baudry, are especially interesting in this regard. You've given your psyche take. Can you step back and give a philosophical one on this issue?

 

[stephen55]

Another fine example of my twisted sense of humour....

People who's self-identity is very much different from their projected identity are definitely a problem in clinical psychiatry. It's also a problem around here. That said, the difference between self and projected identity can also be a problem for psychiatrists.

Charley, all I was going with in my tale of the pious psychiatrist was the serious damage the guy was doing to his patient because of the failure to keep his role as a medical doctor separate from his self identity as a fundamentalist Christian.

In medicine, us docs have to be careful not to let personal opinion, which might have something to do with self identity, get in the way of doing our job as a doctor. That job might have something to do with projected identity.

On the belief that it's a good idea to take up a new interest or hobby every now and then, about fifteen years ago I started reading some books on philosophy. Being bibliophilic, I have a modest collection of the stuff. Please don't confuse me with a philosopher.

That said, as a backwoods country doc, in a part of Canada where characters abound, it took a while to learn to not mistake fringe opinion and behavior (my definition, at least) with pathology. In my neck of the woods, a psychiatrist who had spent a decade or two working in, say the west end of Vancouver, upon relocating to this town,would have half the population committed in a month.

So when I wrote that People who's self-identity is very much different from their projected identity are definitely a problem in clinical psychiatry, I was doing so with a bit of my tongue in my cheek.

As a philosophical project, self versus projected image sounds interesting and I'll see what I can find in my modest collection. As a medical/psychiatric issue, I dealt with it every day.

 

[CharleyH]

People who's self-identity is very much different from their projected identity are definitely a problem in clinical psychiatry. It's also a problem around here. That said, the difference between self and projected identity can also be a problem for psychiatrists.

Charley, all I was going with in my tale of the pious psychiatrist was the serious damage the guy was doing to his patient because of the failure to keep his role as a medical doctor separate from his self identity as a fundamentalist Christian.

In medicine, us docs have to be careful not to let personal opinion, which might have something to do with self identity, get in the way of doing our job as a doctor. That job might have something to do with projected identity.

On the belief that it's a good idea to take up a new interest or hobby every now and then, about fifteen years ago I started reading some books on philosophy. Being bibliophilic, I have a modest collection of the stuff. Please don't confuse me with a philosopher.

That said, as a backwoods country doc, in a part of Canada where characters abound, it took a while to learn to not mistake fringe opinion and behavior (my definition, at least) with pathology. In my neck of the woods, a psychiatrist who had spent a decade or two working in, say the west end of Vancouver, upon relocating to this town,would have half the population committed in a month.

So when I wrote that People who's self-identity is very much different from their projected identity are definitely a problem in clinical psychiatry, I was doing so with a bit of my tongue in my cheek.

As a philosophical project, self versus projected image sounds interesting and I'll see what I can find in my modest collection. As a medical/psychiatric issue, I dealt with it every day.

I'm not bashing you for it, (and I admittedly didn't get your sense of humour from this one post, but then that's a drawback of communicating on the Internet - I've only read your one post. ) I simply think you raise some interesting philosophical questions that I, for one, am interested in hearing more about.

 

[Handley_Page]

Philosophically speaking, did the concept of one God retard the advancement of women?

I don't think so. Women were having a definite "say" in events of the time; at least in the 'civilised' parts. It was the Church itself who started to separate women and put them in the "useful to procreate" department.

 

[ishtat]

I wouldn't presume that I know enough philosophy to philosophize in any serious way at this moment or for the foreseeable future. I think I might know more about Kierkegaard than anyone I've ever come into contact with, but that doesn't really put me in a position to philosophize on Christian existentialism. Professors are meant to parrot ideas to undergrads, if you've ever been in a graduate course the professors will challenge you to think for yourself against the great ones.

I pretty much agree with your first sentence but I think it's important for the student to try to understand by trying to play the game rather than spectating. Of course they're not going to achieve anything serious or original but if they can gain just a glimmer of insight...

More years ago than I care to remember I taught logic to undergrads and post grads for a few years. I was primarily a mathematician at the time and I think it's fair to say that if my students limitations were sometimes exposed their teacher's were doubly so.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STEVE

The headshrinking business imposes values on patients; its what we do. The problem is the political struggle for the patient's soul; and its a rare doc who fixes the problem and lets the soul-saving go.

I recall one of my clinical perfessers; he was maybe 5 feet tall, weighed maybe 100 pounds, and was a vicious mother-fucker. I interviewed a female gang-rape victim, and during the course of the interview she characterized the rapists as 'goddamned niggers.' My perfesser went ape shit because I didnt change the aim of treatment from rape trauma to racist soul cleansing. He wanted her mind right first. And his agenda is no different from the evangelist who wants the patient right with Jesus first.

Or the guy who comes in wearing a red corduroy tennis dress trimmed with plaid, red tennis shoes, and plaid sox. 'Chrissy' sez he's depressed cuz everyone laughs at him and calls him names. I suggested he change his costume. His shrink went nutz.

When he came to our facility Chrissy was an employed nurse who lived independently; later we housed him on campus and he had no job. He ran with a herd of borderline lesbian patients from day treatment. His doc was flummoxed that I called Chrissy 'John' and refused admission to the female ward. I put John in the male unit. And I told her, his name is John and I've seen him in the shower. He's a bull who fancies himself a cow. "But he'll never produce milk!"

 

[LaRocha]

People who's self-identity is very much different from their projected identity are definitely a problem in clinical psychiatry. It's also a problem around here. That said, the difference between self and projected identity can also be a problem for psychiatrists.

Charley, all I was going with in my tale of the pious psychiatrist was the serious damage the guy was doing to his patient because of the failure to keep his role as a medical doctor separate from his self identity as a fundamentalist Christian.

In medicine, us docs have to be careful not to let personal opinion, which might have something to do with self identity, get in the way of doing our job as a doctor. That job might have something to do with projected identity.

On the belief that it's a good idea to take up a new interest or hobby every now and then, about fifteen years ago I started reading some books on philosophy. Being bibliophilic, I have a modest collection of the stuff. Please don't confuse me with a philosopher.

That said, as a backwoods country doc, in a part of Canada where characters abound, it took a while to learn to not mistake fringe opinion and behavior (my definition, at least) with pathology. In my neck of the woods, a psychiatrist who had spent a decade or two working in, say the west end of Vancouver, upon relocating to this town,would have half the population committed in a month.

So when I wrote that People who's self-identity is very much different from their projected identity are definitely a problem in clinical psychiatry, I was doing so with a bit of my tongue in my cheek.

As a philosophical project, self versus projected image sounds interesting and I'll see what I can find in my modest collection. As a medical/psychiatric issue, I dealt with it every day.

Self-concept clarity is the fiction of self-identity. We don't make presentations to ourselves about our identity to be clear about what we are, we make the presentation as part of our outward identity(sole identity)

All the information that makes up your identity, before and after you're self-aware, comes from outside yourself. You are a marginal player in the observations about you, you can only spin or slant that information to what you believe benefits or harms the idea of you. Infants do it on instinct, children and adults are more calculated. That transformed information when it's tossed back is either accepted or rejected by your community/context.

Transgenders get positive and negative reinforcement toward the gender identity they wish to portray. They can only associate with one gender over another because of the set of facts of each gender that makes up the information coming at them.

Identity is always temporary for a given context, set of circumstances, and goals. You want to be this, but the information says that about you, so you have to mediate between the two along with the people around you providing the context for your identity. Most people can't accept being gay or black or Evangelical until someone else accepts that identity for them. That's why coming out is so important, it's not about revealing a hidden identity, it's about revealing 'identity'.

There is no inside and outside identity in normal people, you get someone with psychopathy or one of the various personality disorders once in a while, but the rest of us are stuck in the empathetic world of having to consider and care what others think.