I was doing a little introspection, evaluating myself in somewhat of an objective angle. What I came up with is; Philosophically I would best describe myself as a sociopath.
This sounds bad but that is not all I am. Conceptual values are basically artificial, yet people ignore all true inner nature to stand up for them. I think that is crap, natural values are by far not a bad thing, it is where we get things like empathy, love and compassion, it is also where we get things like self preservation, ingenuity, creativity, a drive to make life worth living.
If we have no concept of these things, they would still exist in us, as evidence of animals who have no conceptual abilities, and if they do they fail completely to display them in any way, yet they show signs of these natural values, perhaps more rudimentary than us due to our gifts and tools, but there nonetheless.
So philosophically, being a sociopath is not bad, it is basically the concept of dissolving attachments to concepts, and in this sense you can then be free to embrace your natural values, exist more in that moment rather that manifest fears and desires based on ideas of what will come, or guilt and pride based on what has passed.
The idea is that your ideas are not you, they are distractions that steer you away from being you. Ideas obviously can be a vital tool in discovery and insight, but that is all they are; tools, not your identity. I am not saying abolish them, but hold them in the regard they deserve, not more or less.
@trek79, an interesting post, I enjoyed reading it very much. Thank you. Choice, my friend is amongst the ultimate powers. It’s wonderful to know that our ideas don’t necessarily have to act as distractions which carry us away from our truer selves, because when we harness this incredible thing between our ears we can drive, shape, mould and cutivate these ideas into values (which can be ever-augmented) most aligned with what we feel in our moments of deeper connection to ourselves, others and the world around us. We no longer have to be a slave to our conceptual values when we understand that it is within our power to liberate ourselves from this rigidity, so that we might flourish by moving closer to our natural state. We can choose our most empowering reality from moment to moment.
@embersoul, Pretty much everything is subjective, it is when we solidify a concept in our behaviour as a constant that we inevitably fault. Understanding things is just how we can best translate our nature into action, but if the result of action is contrary to our nature then we must re-evaluate that translation.
That is a problem you see with traditional values; people decide they are absolutes and even though they have results that are contrary to a loving nature, they are unwilling to reassess their approach.
@trek79, Your reply reminded me very much of this article. http://thoughtcatalog.com/daniel-coffeen/2012/12/arguments-are-boring/
edit: I meant this article. But the other one is good too. http://hilariousbookbinder.blogspot.com/2012/05/nothing-is-subjective.html
@trek79, Nice buddy, I like this a lot. :) Thank you for your reply. The flexibility you speak of is very important. We are hardwired, it seems, to have an aversion to death… Survival at all costs. It seems that this even translates to the death of our ideologies and beliefs. We’ve been known to hold on and hold on, at the cost of letting go of something which should be ever more important. Maybe it’s because we’re afraid? Maybe it’s because we don’t understand that there are better options available to us? Maybe it’s because we view our subjective experience with a bias? I think the point you made in your reply, that we should seek to re-evaluate our stance should our actions work counter to our true nature, was spot on! And beautifully written. It might make for an interesting thread to discuss how mental rigidity might be overcome… I’m new to this site – I signed up yesterday. I like it very much already. I believe I’ll be reading through your posts as they’re very engaging! :)
@trek79, about the initial part of what you said – it only sounds bad because of a generalized reputation/ misunderstanding that all people with sociopath traits intentionally hurt others versus could inadvertently hurt feelings. enjoyed the post and the pointed advantages
consider one trait found in all sociopaths and understand that this trait is the problem with being a sociopath, in fact, this trait is the real reason, the ‘sociopath’ is a description of what happens if the trait is repeated over and over,
the trait and the word sociopath could be used interchangeable
@paintedbeings, @tine, Yes, I am talking about a conceptual principle of sociopathy, a philosophical incarnation of the phenomena. A real sociopath has no compulsion to obey any law, has no compassion or empathy, they are driven only by what gains for them, any apparent obeying of social norm is simply out of convenience in their methods.
The best way I can explain what I mean is to say; philosophically I have no problem with hurting people, but my nature demands that I do not harm people, and so I cannot harm people. I am making a distinction between our subjective moral constructs and a natural love that exists beyond any conceptual definitions.
@trek79, so you are saying that from birth we already have a “personality” ? Are we not just learning machines ? being moulded by experiences, and choosing which ideals and values we cling on to ? Monkey see monkey do ?
Are you saying that “sociopaths” , if such a thing is even real , choose their own values very specifically ? I think decisions and opinions are just a coin flip away in our minds. White or black , beautiful or ugly, and also based on majority opinion. We wear clothes , why ? because we are influenced by the majority, sociopath or not you still have to follow these concepts, to merely exist within society.
What interests me the most is … You put a lot of emphasis on being “you” , why do you assume that underneath all this learned behaviour , there even is a “you” ? perhaps there is nothing
@fucksake, No, I am saying that from birth we have a nature, personality is a reflection of how we process information, how we are conditioned by our experiences to process information.
I think that the average human artificially constructs a philosophical morality, subjective to degrees but often based on external guidance. In that process they choose to ignore their natural sense of love and behave according to that moral construct, but in essence their nature is over-riden, even destroyed, making them naturally a sociopath only but for the fact they remain obedient to the moral construct.
A “real” sociopath has neither the natural sense nor the philosophical construct to dictate their actions.
Did I put emphasis on being “you”? What I mean is there are natural compulsions within us, all our philosophising does is justify us in ignoring those natural compulsions, for what we decide are a more rational solution. But what I mean is that solutions that best correspond to that natural compulsion IS the most rational.
@tine, I think there are two natural factors to a human being; Personal welfare and extra-personal welfare, selfishness and selflessness. Life and experience forge a code on how we exemplify those compulsions, which we prioritise. But the thing is; if you take either compulsion full circle they arrive at the same conclusion, ugliness is when we get side tracked and fail to find that conclusion.
It is not like one is bad and the other good, it is not that one is preferable over the other, regardless of which is the base of a person, you can fail to rationally assess how to logically apply them, the result is equally harmful either way, just harmful in different ways.
perhaps, but i dont think you mean to label yourself as a sociopath then. here, i’ll just tell you, the secret behind being a sociopath is…
-selfishness-, this one factor. if you are a sociopath you are 100% for sure selfish. now, to me, what distinguishes between a sociopath and just your run of the mill selfish human is,
you use your mind to gain at the expense of others. <– right here, is the line, for me. you arent just thinking about yourself, you are proactive about it. if you practice the art of selfishness (which is usually taught to us) you will eventually reach a point where you hold somebody else's fate in your hands,
and it is here, what you decide to do, that determines whether or not you are a sociopath.
a sociopath is someone who has 0 ability to empathize brought on by the ugly practice of selfishness. -selfishness- this is the ugly, simple truth behind sociopaths, a deep, unending selfishness.
Indeed, and even phrasing it as a sociopath “philosophically” lends a very different notion.
If you’re going to talk about psychology and sociopathy, it would be of more use if you understood the field and concept more.
Or if your point is only in the ideas you’ve achieved through reasoning, stick to only them. I.e. what you know.
same with @tine, that is not sociopathy.
Know what you’re talking about before you talk about it!
yea? are you even sure you understand what perspective i am looking at the topic? i guess, do you agree or disagree that the core mechanism of a sociopath is a proactive selfishness? bc if you look at what i wrote, that’s all i was saying.
here’s a definition i found, what exactly are you in conflict with?
“a personality disorder characterized by a lack of social responsibility and failure to adapt to ethical and social standards of the community.”
^sounds like a profound selfishness to me.
So you know how the DSM isn’t like the classic science textbook, disorders come and go. There have been documented people who were diagnosed as sociopaths, that behave, think, and feel markedly differently from other people also diagnosed as such.
it’s much more complex than a lack of responsibility and failure to adapt, which is one of many definitions on the internet. Even, and specifically, psychologists are still understanding it. There’s the common lack of empathy impulse, grandiose fantasies; these aren’t the results of “practicing selfishness” but of a combination of genetic and environmental factors, that lead the individual to acting in a certain way.
Some psychologists think cultural influences are often what cause and can ultimately reverse Sociopathy, which is steadily becoming more common in the u.s. Compare .03-.14% of people in Taiwan diagnosed to 4% in America.
Some have families, love their children, and often can only achieve this by reflecting and practicing introspection. Like any other person who experiences psychological disturbances, they do what they can, try to be healthier. Such a person might be on here, giving you advice. And they might take umbrage with being told they practice in an ugly manner this “profound selfishness.”
@tine, I’m not labelling myself as a sociopath, I am saying that philosophically I could be described as sociopathic. People have conceptual, moral values, sociopaths do not, I am suggesting that conceptual, moral values are not ultimately necessary, as long as you are in touch with your nature.
Our human nature has all the compulsions for appropriate behaviour without the need to forge those compulsions into concepts. A real sociopath has neither the conceptual morals nor the natural compulsions to be compassionate, these are two distinct aspects of human motive.
I would even go so far as to suggest that a real sociopath could behave compassionately if they had adequate logic and could rationally assess their behaviour with reasonable objectivity.
|| sociopaths do not, I am suggesting that conceptual, moral values are not ultimately necessary, as long as you are in touch with your nature. ||
and what i am saying is, if you truly believe this, then this is your selfish nature’s manifestation, it’s excuse, so to speak, for the sociopathic behaviors.
you dont submit to the moral values of others because you are forced to, you submit to them out of respect for all other people, you submit to them out of accountability,
to deem them not necessary is the excuse mentioned previously being used to separate yourself from having accountability associated with actions that you and i both know cause you pain.
bro, || There’s the common lack of empathy impulse || this is all i said, instead i used the word selfishness to describe the lack of empathy =)
|| And they might take umbrage with being told they practice in an ugly manner this “profound selfishness.” ||
right… like, id get to know them before i’d be that blunt, but the profound selfishness, this part is true,
and know that i am not saying that all persons are selfish by nature or cannot ever change, i understand there are many variations of the puzzle and i often seen that selfishness is taught is childhood by how the parents show/don;t show, ‘love’, or, how they treat what is under their control (children, pets) and from this i believe that selfishness can be a learned condition, its how their parents were, it was passed on,
but i also believe that everyone has the ability to chose a new direction, anytime,
i guess, is this something you really care about or are you just arguing?
@tine, What I am saying is that philosophically I’m a Nihilist but I only apply that philosophy to conceptual motives, I believe there are natural compulsions that exist without being conceptualised and they are not offensive in nature. Conceptual motives contribute to the distortion of rational thought processes and so become a liability.
With a rational mind guided by natural compulsion, I believe a person has an advantage in designing appropriate behaviour, but a person guided by conceptually constructed motives is at risk of ignoring their true nature.