advertisement


Philosophy For Life.

Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Sociopaths and psychopaths get to flourish and, as you say, get statues erected. Just look at our current crop of politicians, especially the tories but actually there are significant examples on both sides of the house.
Click to expand...
The same in most walks of life. Just human nature unfortunately. You can see sociopathic behaviour in the senior staff of many organisations.

I was listening to a podcast about Lenin yesterday. What an arsehole.

I'd like to add one more to George's list if I may. I watched an interview with the late Jan Morris where she espoused the value of kindness above all else. It sounds trite but I sometimes stop and ask myself if my actions are being guided by kindness. It's a good rule of thumb.
 
ks.234 said:
My current reading is around the 1066 and the Plantagenets, and it seems to me that we have been ruled by psychopaths and madmen ever since.

First we put up statues to our beloved psychopaths, then we elect them.

What do the statues around our Parliament tell you about love and kindness?

Maybe the revolution needs to start with statues?
Click to expand...

Beloved doesn't come into it for most statues, i more think the people are significant. History tells you whether you might choose to love or depise them.

Some statues are for remembrance, some for art and some just because the person had fans with enough cash to scrape together for an effigy.

Many are successful in the world without being psychopaths, for a long business career you often need a decent reputation.
 
I don't think it's 'just human nature unfortunately' so much as that humans occupy a continuum of behaviour, from utterly altrusitic through to utterly psychopathic. We need to code for this in our moral and ethical behaviour standards.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
We need to code for this in our moral and ethical behaviour standards.
Click to expand...

You may think that some behaviour on the "continuum" is unacceptable, you may find that the immediate circle of people around you may also find it so, but not everyone will agree with you. The only 'correct' behaviour becomes the one that wins the argument / battle and that's a challenge.
 
I also wish that the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" weren't bandied about so readily - people can exhibit traits linked to those conditions without being so. It just comes across as a lazy shorthand for "someone who's moral compass / political philosophy isn't the same as mine" and is the first step on demonizing / dehumanizing them. It's "Othering" and is not justifiable by any side and in any circumstance as it slams the door on proper discourse and finding potential routes out of the mess.
 
dweezil said:
Beloved doesn't come into it for most statues, i more think the people are significant. History tells you whether you might choose to love or depise them.

Some statues are for remembrance, some for art and some just because the person had fans with enough cash to scrape together for an effigy.

Many are successful in the world without being psychopaths, for a long business career you often need a decent reputation.
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean that the statues themselves were beloved, or that *all* statues are venerated. I was talking only about those statues around parliament and how they reflect the morals of peace on earth and goodwill to all men.

The very fact that we celebrate psychopathy in history, statues and business is the problem
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
The real problem is that those who take advantage of people living by these principles are the ones who thrive and get to the top. Being unscrupulous and unprincipled is a strategy for success. It’s no good most people living by these principles, we all have to, and to deal robustly with those who don’t.
Click to expand...
My question is; rather than dealing robustly with unscrupulousness, why do we put up statues to them and vote them into power?
 
Seeker_UK said:
I also wish that the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" weren't bandied about so readily - people can exhibit traits linked to those conditions without being so. It just comes across as a lazy shorthand for "someone who's moral compass / political philosophy isn't the same as mine" and is the first step on demonizing / dehumanizing them. It's "Othering" and is not justifiable by any side and in any circumstance as it slams the door on proper discourse and finding potential routes out of the mess.
Click to expand...
It’s appropriate in defining one end of the continuum though. Unless you think there’s a ‘beyond psychopath’ state?
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
It’s appropriate in defining one end of the continuum though. Unless you think there’s a ‘beyond psychopath’ state?
Click to expand...

For describing, yes, but just because someone exhibits one or more behaviours does not necessarily a psychopath. I lack empathy to the level many here exhibit and I occasionally exhibit selfish behaviour but it does not make me a socio/psychopath.

The issue for me is about the labelling to hide it's a human being you're talking about. It's not just this particular label but part of a wider issue.
 
Seeker_UK said:
For describing, yes, but just because someone exhibits one or more behaviours does not necessarily a psychopath. I lack empathy to the level many here exhibit and I occasionally exhibit selfish behaviour but it does not make me a socio/psychopath.

The issue for me is about the labelling to hide it's a human being you're talking about. It's not just this particular label but part of a wider issue.
Click to expand...
I think you're probably right that these words are overused.

In my own case I had a line manager who I am convinced was a sociopath based on his actions and speech. I'm obviously not a doctor but he just ticked all the boxes. I won't go into specifics but it got to the point where I realised any contact with him was toxic and was significantly impacting my mental health and I left the firm. That isn't an attempt to other or dehumanise him. It's simply the best explanation I have for explaining the behaviour I (and others) experienced.
 
Seeker_UK said:
For describing, yes, but just because someone exhibits one or more behaviours does not necessarily a psychopath. I lack empathy to the level many here exhibit and I occasionally exhibit selfish behaviour but it does not make me a socio/psychopath.

The issue for me is about the labelling to hide it's a human being you're talking about. It's not just this particular label but part of a wider issue.
Click to expand...
Of course, hence why it’s a continuum. My wider point, which is getting lost in the noise, is that socio/psychopathic behaviour is rewarded with success, and I believe that in the upper echelons of government, business and wider society, those (and similar) traits are more prevalent than in society as a whole.

And conversely, those altruistic traits are often found at the lower end of society - consider how much social work and social care, or family members selflessly caring for loved ones, are rewarded with material and social enrichment. Pretty much relegated to the lower strata.
 
There are many "Philosophies for Life". Mine is do what you will but none harm.
 
As a psychologist I must say that I would turn to psychology rather than philosophy to make any sense of human behaviour. I'm not a believer in the old assumption that people always think and make rational choices, and new thought on consciousness suggests that most of our decisions and behaviours are subconscious. Our brains just don't have the capacity and processing power to make multiple decisions in real time.

What if consciousness is not what drives the human mind? | BRAINFACTOR

www.brainfactor.it www.brainfactor.it

As for the psychopath, the original definitions were altered in favour of a new label of sociopath in the classification system. Yes, it's a term that is used both loosely and formally, just like terms like depressed. And like depression, to diagnose it formally you need to test the individual with a standard test. But that doesn't mean that loose terms like these have no currency or meaning as long as most people understand the term the same way. Just parallel usages.

Most research shows that around 50% of personality traits have a genetic basis, yet another reason for looking to psychology and human biology for an explanation of behaviour.

I would certainly defend altruistic behaviour even where there is no real basis for it except that it makes the world a happier and nicer place to live in. "Human Rights" are a worthwhile moral goal, even though humans are born with no rights whatever and are very lucky to have the guarantees that a favourable passport and citizenship bestows on them. And the problem with the "nicer" parts of the various world religions is that they come in a package with all the downsides that a religious power structure has created.

So while good moral behaviour is a hugely important beacon that can shine on us in very favourable ways, it has plenty of competition from nature red in tooth and claw.
 
les24preludes said:
As a psychologist I must say that I would turn to psychology rather than philosophy to make any sense of human behaviour. I'm not a believer in the old assumption that people always think and make rational choices, and new thought on consciousness suggests that most of our decisions and behaviours are subconscious.
Click to expand...
Makes sense to me. Have you ever watched the Ken Campbell series Brainspotting?

 
my philosophy is to avoid becoming a member of a group as this will always disappoint, stay by yourself and think and act as an individual
 
Cheese said:
Not that easy. My dentist is a beautiful woman whose father was himself a successful dentist, she could have had a leisurely life dating rich men, and of course she will inherit. Nevertheless she became a dentist herself, and a very good one at that.

Her kids will inherit millions and have a privileged start in life. Is this now unfair ?
Click to expand...

It's unfair in so much as there are plenty of other people who provide services to society just as important as dentistry whose kids won't inherit millions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top