Lingum

I can't believe you guys got that far into the article. I got stuck in the first two paragraphs trying to figure out all the meaningless rhetoric. I don't know why she bothered to write such a lengthy article trying to prove that patriarchal capitalism is a disease, when she had already defined it as such from the start. She nailed it! Anyways, I fixed it.

After reading through the thread, I made a few observations. They may come across as harsh, but I mean no offense - you're on this board and acting in good faith (despite the differences in values). I appreciate that. Let me give you some examples: I understand that you're paraphrasing another person, but I would include some of his arguments alongside the conclusions. As of yet, we don't understand your definitions or reasons for holding these views. Stefan has extensively provided counter arguments for some of the later claims in your post. I can't tell if you used the phrase successful survival because you struggled with finding the term you were actually looking for. If not, a more thorough definition would be needed. To begin with, you use a tautology (success means setting up the foundations for success) and circular reasoning to assert that soft and hard infrastructure, as well as education in classical culture is needed for success. You never shared a standard for success, but you've already prescribed the necessities for it. Basically you're coasting on the fact that people want to have a successful society by defining success as something you like; rhetoric. After this point I can never quite comprehend what you're trying to convey. It seems to me that you use unnecessarily complex language and grammar to distract people from noticing the fact that you don't reason, but assert. The ambiguous rhetoric reminds me of post-modern literature. You need to be more precise with your language. Survival isn't the word you're looking for, murder is closer. Survival can't be applied as a universal principle. If that was the case, a person would be entitled to all the resources in the world even if it was only to extend his survival on a deathbed by 1 second. By staying with the term freedom, you can apply philosophy and make it a problem of definitions. If freedom is universal, freedom can not cover acts that suppress the freedom of others. Secondly, it's difficult to understand your introduction of anti-nuclear activists. You're either assuming that we both share some background knowledge related to anti-nuclear activism or that we share views on anti-nuclear activism, but I can't tell which. The last sentence brings up questions like: What is civilization? What is economic progress? What does it mean to bring down civilization? Is it bad to prevent economic progress? How do anti-nuclear activists prevent economic progress? How does preventing economic progress bring down civilization? You don't have to answer those questions. This type of statement is very problematic. There is no obvious definition of the word society that would provide your statement with an identifiable meaning. You can injure living things, not concepts (like society). I suspect what you mean is the common sentiment of a person harming the interests (common good) of all the individuals in a society. The problem with the concept of common good is that every individual in a group don't necessarily share the same interests. Often times, people have opposing interests. The use of a concept like common good in philosophy would require a measurable standard to qualify its use. Typically, common good is used as a rhetorical device specifically to circumvent reason and evidence. If you're looking for philosophical clarity, the first place to start is with rejecting collectivist terminology that is (forgive me if I there are exceptions) ambiguous at best, nonsensical probably. ----------------------- I hope this isn't too overwhelming. I don't expect you to respond to the extensive commentary above. I'm curious, do you have people around you that challenge your views or reasoning?

Is this group all people who have depression, or a subset? Because it's my understanding that slow reactions and muted emotions is considered a part of depression. So it would be difficult to make any distinctions. Do you have any thoughts about why you didn't feel motivated for the therapy? Did it have something to do with being over Skype, the therapist or maybe what you were talking about? Did you do self-therapy work on the side? When I first started talking to the psychiatrist, I was very repressed and touchy about a lot of subjects. Over time, I've done a lot of self-improvement as I got over new information, and adjusted myself to being more honest and open. Do you think that could be a factor? And lastly, do you think your depression has anything to do with your childhood?

I want to add something When you ask him questions about why he chose this drug, what you're looking for is a standard. If he thinks psychiatric drugs come without any risks, that's problematic. It would suggest he doesn't do any research and doesn't question information he's given. I find it worrisome that he tells you not to be scared by "internet horror stories" and to trust him, which is a good reason for you to do more research. There's a chance, of course, that he just doesn't want you to get needlessly worried by "internet chatter." By asking him questions, you can figure out if that's the case, or if he's asking you to engage him with blind faith. That would suggest he's not confident in his abilities.

I took Venlafaxine when I was 19. You will probably have some side effects getting on them. I've taken Cipralex and Venlafaxine, and the side effects on Venlafaxine were considerably worse. I was nauseas, diarrhea or loose stool, had something called brain zaps and struggled with controlling my rage. When someone made me angry, I would get so dizzy I worried I'd pass out. That isn't to say you will face the same thing. This tapered off. During my taking of this drug, I noticed that I became pretty withdrawn and zombie-like (as many point out for SSRI's). I had this lingering sensation in my body, that I was sleeping. I specifically noticed this when going to the bathroom, as my body would warn me of the posibility that I was in bed. Also, my sexual appetite was practically null. I think it would be worth asking your psychiatrist why he specifically chose this drug over others. Keep in mind, that despite my description of the drug, which might sound quite claustrophobic, you'll get through it. My second doctor told me Cipralex was favored at that time, and generally had a better track record (side effects, efficacy), which is why she chose it. The side effects I faced getting on them were negligable. However, I had to go off them after a while, as I was struggling with my appetite for sleep. My life became a mess. Saying that the drug works best with other forms of treatment is technically untrue. Either they work or not, and that is independent of other treatments. What researchers find is that drugs rarely cure depression, and the odds of succesful intervention are far better including other forms of treatment. So what he says sounds like a talking point, layman psychiatric branding. Considering how bad psychiatric medications perform in studies and how non-falsifiable the "scientific" foundation of psychiatric diagnostics is, this doesn't surprise me. Still, it's positive that your psychiatrist is forthcoming about the limitations of drugs, despite his description. If I were you, I'd definitely read up on psychiatry on this board, so you're better able to navigate and probe for knowledge in your psychiatrist. I'm a bit confused as to why he chose Venlafaxine, but he may already have an answer to that. If you're going to exercise besides your treatment, I would suggest you take some time to write down what your goals are with your exercise (vividly - what will you achieve), what challenges you might face and how you're going to overcome them. It's easier to keep a habit that way. And of course, remember that it's more important that you get some exercise done, if you find getting started daunting. How do you feel about taking the drugs? I think whether or not you should go through with it, depends on how confident you are in your ability to get better without it. If you're already struggling with motivating yourself to get better, it can help. However, a good talk therapist would probably also be very motivating. Are you going to have therapy with the psychiatrist or someone else? EDIT I mixed up the medicine with another I took because of generic names. Fixed now EDIT 2 I noticed that I missed the first parts of your post about talk therapy. I got a bit eager to respond. Would be great if you elaborated on your experience with talk therapy and also what you plan to do next, as your psychiatrist recommended talk therapy.

I wanted to share this very recent TED talk because I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on the subjects. The talk was as expected. The speaker rushes through complex issues with (very few) facts, and inexplicably injects altruism as a solution. He discusses whether people are altruistic or selfish. I found his framing of that discussion to be disingenuous. Had he instead chosen to compare to rational self-interest, the topic could've been illuminating. It should be no surprise, then, that his "solution" to problems in the world, is not a world where interactions are voluntary. Instead, he chooses to make no mention of the political structures of modern societies. Considering the fact that people in positions of power generally have less empathy (more likely to be sociopaths or psychopaths), that's a huge, unmentioned gap in his theory. Come to think of it, a lot of the most prominent Buddhists glorify the democracies of the West and involve themselves in world politics (Dalai Lama, Aung San Suu Kyi). This is despite the Buddhist principle of doing no harm. Buddhism: Principles of Moral Thought and Action All together, I found the entire talk to be frustratingly vague. Instead of getting into economic and psychological realities, he offers no explanation for statements like "you will have a caring economy." Instead of philosophy, he offers sophistry like "finance at the service of society, and not society at the service of finances." Is finance not a part of society? Edit I forgot to mention the similarities between this talk and Communism. Altruism replaces the part of self-interest in economy Greed or selfishness is a problem People have to change (no detailed approach)

I've seen that conversation with programmers countless times. It's such an abhorrent display of self-indulgence and narcissism. In a podcast I heard a while ago, there was a brief discussion about how many gamers develop delusions of grandieur in isolation. I think it's reasonable to interpret from this kind of behavior that the person is incapable of Letting an oppurtunity for self-congratulation go by Considering the needs or goals of another person Helping another person Not denigrating others Having seen this conversation play out countless times in my life, I consider it the textbook example of narcissism. I would recommend everyone keep a look out for it, as it will help you steer clear of some highly dysfunctional and abusive people. This isn't a conversation that happens in isolation. It's a part of a consistent coping mechanism narcissists use to manage their volatile ego. My personal experience growing up around several people like this, is that they erode your identity over time. They seem to take comfort in killing your enthusiasm and joy. Hope this is of some help.

These books do not primarily focus on philosophy. However, the writers have been big inspirations for FDR Shortly, Nathaniel Branden on self-acceptance, virtue and happiness Alice Miller on childhood, abuse, psychology and therapy John Bradshaw on the inner child, psychology and family systems Nathaniel Branden- and John Bradshaw's books focus on self-improvement. They do have a lot of value as informative books, but are first and foremost practical (journaling).

Any book from John Bradshaw Nathaniel Branden Alice Miller Of them, he often mentions Nathaniel Branden's "Six Pillar of Self-Esteem" Alice Miller's "the Drama of the Gifted Child" I would recommend John Bradshaw's "Home Coming: Reclaiming and Championing Your Inner Child", which is a great start for journaling.

I've been interested in learning Mindfulness for some weeks. Do you have a book recommendation for a beginner? It seems there are many good, but similar books on Amazon.

It sounds like the other posters have already given you a lot of good information, so I just want to point one thing out. I think you've gained something from this situation. You've gotten confirmation that you're on the right track. You are more aware of the people you engage with, and you can tell when you aren't true to yourself. You found that you didn't like it, which means you will be hesitant about doing it again. I don't think you failed and should feel guilty, because it seems like you're continually making progress. It's natural to be tempted and hope dysfunctional people will finally satisfy your needs, but that temptation will go away as it sinks in that they won't. I don't think feeling guilty about this will help you with being your true self. It sounds like it could be a distraction, rather. You don't have to perform any rituals or shame yourself after this. You can just allow yourself to experience the thoughts and feelings this event brought up, and accept them. You're already on the right track.

Don't forget that marriage also functions as a personal parade day for women. Most of the guys I've heard that are adamant about marriage being unnecessary, eventually ends up getting married. I suspect they do this simply because the women want marriage as a status symbol, and are also terrified of social shaming as a result of not being married. They may say otherwise, but I'm more inclined to believe they were pressured into it by their girlfriends. In my experience, women tend to short circuit on this issue. They accept the logic, but refuse to entertain the notion that they're not going to marry one day. I think the guys that openly express this view, but get married regardless, are missing the big picture altogether. The discussion on whether marriage is necessary should illuminate what values your partner has. If she feels she needs a contract for her future financial security, what does that say about her commitments? If she wants to burn through your savings for a day of ceremonious self-worship, how will this play out in your mutual finances in the future? It's interesting to note that guys like this completely abandon their "values" for the convenience of women. Personally, I would consider it a giant warning if my girlfriend (hypothetical) wanted to get married.

I'm sorry. This is really abusive behavior. His explanation makes no sense. Why would he not say something for a long time, then blurt it out in front of everybody? It sounds more likely that he has some unresolved issues that your presence reminds him of. Maybe he gets nervous that you don't indulge his need for empty small talk. Most people with issues are used to other people meeting them halfway, even if what they're saying is obviously a lie, or just irrational. They come to the rescue when the silence resembles connection. It's the mutual commitment people have to dishonesty. Maybe he wanted to use you to distract from how uncomfortable he was with the situation. It's interesting that he expects peoples' attention, and to be entertained in that environment. It sounds like he's acting out like children do. There must be something seriously wrong with him, for not even realizing how abusive that was. I can't imagine he has any capacity for empathy. I wouldn't put any stock into this situation. The way he told you, tells you it all has to do with him.

Look up the features of the different password managers to find one that meets your needs. I've used KeePass for a few years, and I'm very happy with it. I keep a standalone version with a password protected database on my Dropbox. KeePass keeps all your passwords locally. In addition, I use Firefox to remember login information so I never have to enter them. With Firefox sync you can share passwords, bookmarks, settings on multiple devices. That service is encrypted and inaccessible even to the Mozilla crew themselves. I still use my password manager as an archive of passwords and personal information, and backup. Using a password manager can increase the security of your private data tremendously. However, it does require some work and effort on your part. I had to spend a few hours going through all my online accounts to change passwords and other security details. You typically want to seperate your online accounts and their passwords Don't use the same password and username several places Don't use the same password on a site that is connected to your e-mail If you're going to use an online based password manager (keeps your data for you), you should do some research on it first. Is it a reputable software? Have they had security issues in the past?

That's one of the saddest things I've ever heard. He's settling for a life of sexual humiliation and exploitation. No one is willing to tell him that his decision might ruin him financially and will ruin his entire life. It has always seemed to me, that when people make excuses for someone else, it's because they're doing the same thing themselves (to some degree). Judging other people for traits you have is uncomfortable (cognitive dissonance). I just listen without interrupting them, and consider it a warning of what's to come. What do you think?

So true. Great post Josh.

I think Lars summarizes what I consider to be a valid application of the friendzone. Of course, most men use this as an excuse to avoid self-honesty, which is why they're in that predicament in the first place. However, it still applies to a subset of women that realize a man only has romantic interest in her, which she doesn't share, but continuously dangle the prospect of such a relationship with ambiguous language and affection for other reasons. The friendzone is ultimately a choice both participants make, usually with one party less conscious about it.

It's an interesting video. I've never though of histrionic in terms of sexuality before. In my opinion, Personality Disorders serve much better as general descriptors for types of behavior or people, than medical disorders, where they are counter-intuitive and misleading. Neither of them are identifiable or possible to distinguish from each other. It's that kind of ambiguity that makes the current state of psychiatric misinformation possible. If you want to read more in depth about the behaviors, check out:SplittingIdealization and devaluationCompartmentalization (psychology)Narcissistic rage and narcissistic injuryWhy Some Borderline, Narcissistic and Histrionic Mothers Sabotage their Children

That's really interesting. I haven't read much about it. I often find it bizarre, that in the West we see all the dysfunction of democracy and everybody complains. Yet, when there's protests in a country under dictatorship, those same people do complete turnarounds, talking of democracy as sacred. It seems like democracy is only a container of all the empty sentiments and phrases people have heard, but never experienced.

Reddit - Having trouble finding a Libertarian candidate? I'll post some glorious quotes: All I heard was; "Quite frankly, I will always vote", which I believe to be true. Apparently, a lot of Libertarians are under the impression that change will happen when people are seen in public wanting change. Xatana really wants to be that guy, the guy the Democrats and Republicans look at, wondering what could have been... So romantic... Such beauty. "Hey, everybody! Don't listen to the guy that tells you not to vote! That's how they get ya. Those awful statists." At least he follows this up with some insight into his... I wanna call it logic... or bratwurst... oh, it's in the name; fart box:

If this is the kind of empathy this person has for children, how much do you think he/she has for you?

It's remarkable how sadistic victims of child abuse can become when they decide to give up. They proudly commit to public frenzies of child desecration, hoping to kill the carrier of their trauma. They do this, just after trying to convince an audience that they've turned out to be well-adjusted and empathetic individuals. Every victim of child abuse has to be mercilessly tortured and disassembled in their quest for peace of mind. They've experienced the horrors of child abuse, but decide that every child should suffer the same fate, so they can reinvent their cowardice as virtue. "I didn't escape, so no one can escape." I gain some relief knowing that the people who decide to join the ranks of child abusers will only prolong their own suffering indefinitely and seal their own fate. I don't think these people deserve any sympathy. They're certainly no victims any more.

It also describes children who are abused or neglected, which would bring the psychiatric tragedy full circle, once again. On every site I visited trying to gather information on this, there were parents leaving comments, convinced that they had now gotten medical validation that their children suffer from a brain disorder.

I recently came across a Pete Breggin podcast where he interviews a guest about a new, up-and-coming psychiatric disorder being prepared for the public by pharmaceutical companies and psychiatrists, aimed at children. This new disorder is called Sluggish Cognitive Tempo. The following list of symptoms is identified in a research paper. [*]Prone to daydreaming [*]Difficulty staying awake or alert in boring situations [*]Easily confused [*]Easily bored [*]Spacey or in a fog [*]Lethargic or more tired than others [*]Underactive or less energy than others [*]Slow moving [*]Don't process information as quickly or accurately as others This is where things begin to get interesting. The researcher is Russel Barkley, a clinical psychologist and professor of psychiatry who has devoted much of his scientific career to studying ADHD, childhood defiance and written several books on ADHD both for parents and practitioners. This latest research was done for the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly, and published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, dedicating an entire edition to it. In Psychology Today - No Child Left Undiagnosed, Allen Frances describes: The article referenced is that of The New York Times investigative reporter, Alan Schwarz, who has previously written on the epidemic of ADHD. What do you guys think?

I was using Borg as a synonym for the collective, which maybe you can relate to coming from Sweden. I'm sorry to hear that your father was abusive, and also that you had to quit your relationship with your mother. Both must have been rough. You could also post in the Forum or the Chat so you can have a dialogue with more people. I can be a bit slow to respond. Initially, you can do what you're comfortable with. I'm of course interested in hearing about it, and I've had good experiences sharing my life with people on FDR.