Yes though as I said I was not even thinking in those terms but we learn to read between the lines as you did.
.
Extremely - I am like a gypsy, but I do eventually like to reach my destination which then in a way begins another journey. I also rather enjoy being a contrarian. Who wants to really think like someone else, like everyone else. That may also be a great approach to the beginning of the “journey”.
Something about that made me laugh. Who knows why. How can I speak for others?
Anyway, it occurs to me that in a sense, that IS one of the philosophical methods of ultimately finding truth and answers, I think… that we go along on this journey observing and exploring and thinking and questioning and doing just what you said ~~ finding out where you end up or one might say “getting one’s bearings”. But “ending up” is not necessarily the end of the journey or the ultimate objective - it just allows us to see if we are going in the right direction to find the truth, the answers. I am not sure if I am expressing this in a way that you will understand. I might say that doing this is like the scout who goes out before to see what is ahead. Perhaps not a good analogy.
This I do not see as a waste of time since finding out where you end up is only the half of it.
No, personally I do not think of it as a bad thing. It just depends on how each individual approaches something. We do not get from A to Z in one giant leap. If we do not “see” things along the way we may end up in a ditch and break our ankles. lol or have to go back to where we began and begin again.
Not in any moral sense and not something they want to spread and not in the sense of making things better for anyone but themselves.
If you meant it to include that way from the beginning, sure. But it didn’t read like that.
It’s practical, for them.
It’s not a moral framework.
Right.
Nope, not saying that. I am saying I used to think
That even the people who seemed horrible to me thought they were being moral and were trying to make the world a better place. In fact, I still think Hitler was like that. But I don’t think that in general anymore about a lot of people in power. I think many more of them might put on a moral front, but in fact they are just playing a game for their own gain. I would not use that sentence that I just quoted about them. I don’t think it fits psychopaths to say they think they are right and on the good path. I think there are a lot of psychopaths in positions of power. I don’t think anything that sentence will imply to most people fits either.
Perhaps you meant it to include that psychopaths might think others are silly to worry about being good for moral reasons. I think then that sentence was poorly worded if it was meant to include that.
But if what you meant includes thinking that its better for them not to have morals, ok. But not morally better. And they don’t want to spread this less hampered, as they see it, way of being. They are happy others are shackled. And they are not trying to improve things, except for themselves. They are not really social mammals. Not in the full sense.
Sure Arcturus. I have meant to complement Your reticence, and You must have interpreted diagonally, as if such restraint was a negative. That’s all. Peace!
Sorry for the misinterpretation not coinciding with the intended!
No need to apologize, Meno. Hakuna Matata. I was not insulted in the least as you can see by my above smilies.
You really only see me here. You do not see me out in the real world albeit one can say in a way that this is also the real world…like a masked ball. Sometimes I like to pick and choose my battles in here depending on what is at stake. I have no problem opening the can of worms though I do not so much like them (though I do save them from drowning when it rains) or making waves. It just depends. I think that we all have different personas and “wear” them for different occasions. We may not always find it but it is a good thing I think to seek some balance. Anyway, I am a Libran. lol
i’d argue that sociopaths/psychopaths… let’s just generalize and call em all ‘anti-social’ for convenience sake… aren’t suffering from what the folk psychologists of the herd like to call an affliction; it isn’t necessarily a weakness of character to be discriminatory toward people you associate with. but this pop psychology you find in the DSM narratives is already ambiguous, not to mention influenced by the pervading spirit of the over-socialization encouraged by the western world and lifestyle. ergo, if you ain’t hanging out with all kinds of people and out spending money and shit, you must be sick.
but think about this, maybe. perhaps it’s just that for the anti-social person, interest is more easily and quickly lost in people. the public becomes an amorphous blob of identical people and anomie sets in for the anti-social. but put him in the company of someone who stands out, who’s unique, and his interests are stoked. it’s like drugs, man. anti-social people develop tolerances for people just like drugs. they need something stronger because they’ve developed a tolerance. you put a ted bundy in a room with nine out of ten people and the greater percent of his interaction is going to be on a trivial level. the public person in him will play he expected role; hey how ya doing, nice weather, etc., etc. but the private person has absolutely no interest in those people beyond their use to him. but wait. is that because ted’s ‘anti-social sickness’ prevents him from experiencing genuine congeniality, or because those people simply aren’t interesting to him? and if the latter, who’s fault is that? but you put me in a room with teddy and i’ll have that fucker wanting to go bowling with me in less than five minutes. provided that the sociopath has some degree of intelligence and is able to respond, he has the capacity to be intrigued. you just gotta know how to do it. you gotta be fantastic enough to be interesting to someone who’s normal emotional character is a general malaise in the company of others.
i think rather most people aren’t fantastic enough to draw the attention and interests of those who we like to call ‘anti-social’, that’s all. and because it hurts the feelings of ordinary people to know that a sociopath somewhere doesn’t attribute any more value to them than he does to a monkey, they get together and agree to call him ‘sick’.
and check this out. search terms ‘i am a sociopath’ on youtube and look at the results. none of those clowns are real sociopaths. to them, its just a fashion statement, some obscure shit they read somewhere that felt empowering, so now they play the role as if it were some kind of game. lol. sociopaths don’t make videos explaining that they’re sociopaths. that was the first give-away.
I don’t think even the dsm is that bad and I hate the dsm. And I agree that psychopaths and sociopaths are not sick. But they are partially human. They do not have a disease, but they are partial people. And if they have power, it is a problem for full people. And a lot of the power positions are held by these people, in part because emotions and giving a shit has been pathologized. In part because we are taught to hate out intuition - so we pretend these people are whole and also fail to notice the emptiness behind their facades.
Sure, and that’s no a psychopath, who might find someone interesting like that, but would not give a shit about them except to the extent he could use them.
This is some other issue you’re running. A lot of these psychopaths in power today look quite social. They can, precisely as you yourself described, play the game.
And they don’t do this for people who are exceptional either except as tools You’re conflating two differnt things.
and futher, you are justifying, implicitly a failing. If they are so damn exceptional, they can find other exceptional people and be social with them. Yes, the group you are talking about may have less contacts and friends. But they will not be or look anti-social. They may not like parties and small talk, but they will have a group of friends and they will have acquantances who they will care about, just far fewer. If they don’t, well, guess what, they are probably not as exceptional as they think and their feeling of superiority is a defence mechanism. sure, they may be smart, but the reason they are mostly alone is because they have problems. And you wouldn’t believe how manyo f these people come to philosophy forums and pronounce their greatness and then take their smugness and half-lives to the grave without solving their problems. But they are hot psychopaths. They could care about people, but pride and fear are keeping them from getting enough intimicy in their lives.
