Hello Philosophy Society!

Discussion 1: State

Our current state is composed of several factors which contribute to it. As seen from the philosophy of CBT, our thoughts are a large contributing factor to the current emotional state we are experiencing. Those thoughts produce a certain neurochemistry in our brains. We are also stimulated by our environment and our physiological condition.

To produce a desired state, like well being or happiness, it may take time for one to rewire their brains and practice empowering and realistic thinking patterns. We may unconsciously develop emotional states because of negative thinking patterns we have forgotten. We can bring these automatic thoughts to mind and work with them explicitly so that we can associate those new, rational and realistic ways of thinking to our environments and situations.

If we have dug ourselves into a negative mood, it may take us time to grow out of it. We have to learn how to make constructive decisions on actions that we enjoy. Sometimes our evaluation of activities can be incorrect, demotivating us from trying the activity. This is where reality testing our thoughts is so important. We want to be able to use the principle of falsification so that our thoughts are such that they can be tested.

We can guide ourselves through our experience to a heightened state of well being if we are able to attend to those experiences and exercise some control over the factors that contribute to the quality of the experiences. If it is true that our thoughts and the story we are telling ourselves affects our mood, we do have control over making those thoughts explicit and modifying them. This practice is fundamental for our wellbeing and will give us greater satisfaction and meaning in our lives.

Philosophy Academy: Feeling Good

This week we read through the introduction of the book and reviewed all the major points. Each page I identified the main points and we took breaks for discussion if there was something relevant to that idea. Next week we will be going through chapter 1 and 2. This book is part of the Philosophy Academy program where we learn skills related to the good life. Feeling Good is part of the Emotional Intelligence series of courses.

Whatsapp Chat Group: Trumpism, Conspiracy and Delusional Thinking

Reggie: Do we really think that the 74 million Americans who voted for Trump are ignorant, have fallen for fascist charisma, and/or believe that Democrats eat children? If so, that's quite the claim

Achilles: What do you think?

Reggie: Not sure, I'm just trying to make sense of the newsletter lol. Also not sure how school shootings falls under "Trumpism"

Achilles: Well the Trump voters are a different group than the Qanon conspiracy group. Both are not engaged in critical thinking. This is not to say that all Republicans are not critical. I am open to a reasonable republican but I wouldn't say Trump fits that model. I put the shooting topic under that heading. It is a different issue, you are right.

Reggie: I think when you say "Trump voters", maybe you mean Trump's base supporters

Achilles: What do you see as the difference?

Reggie: The base are a subset of the total 74 million voters

Sathvik: How can people believe in such outlandish claims? Doesn't logic even cross their mind once?

Reggie: I don't think it's appropriate to broad brush all those who voted or supported Trump. That's the problem though when you only have two options. Which claims though? All of them, or specific ones?

Sathvik: There are some diehard Trump fans. I’m talking about them

Achilles: You see me making a false dichotomy. I can agree. How would you categorize the Trump supporters?

Reggie: There are diehard NDP voters too. Every group has a 'base.'

Sathvik: I’m talking about the Trumpers rn. How can people believe such claims without even considering logic? Does logic even cross their mind? I guess that’s just me. But I doubt that I would believe such a thing without any doubt whatsoever crossing my mind. And I can’t believe that doubt didn't lodge into their minds.

Reggie: Which claims though? If Qanon, they're just batshit crazy. But if you lost your job due to companies moving to China and found no solutions through Obama, I'd be looking for a different kind of hope. The child eating? That's just a small subset of the 74M.

Sathvik: How can anyone believe that? It’s so wildly untrue that I’m snorting about it. Also r u suggesting that everyone has a bit of schizophrenia in them? But some people take it to the extreme by believing weird claims.

Reggie: All I'm suggesting is that perhaps we would better understand a large group of 74 million people by breaking them down into subgroups.

Consider that, from a policy perspective, while Biden reversed some of Trump's decisions, many still remain in place. So not everything could have been bad.

I think conspiracy theorists in general tend to appear on the political right because those on the right tend not to trust the government or those in power. Whereas those on the left believe that the government should be entrusted/empowered to do more.

Achilles: Well conspiracy theorizing is a symptom of paranoid schizophrenia.

Reggie: How so? Depends which/what type of conspiracy theory, no?

Achilles: It depends on whether someone will change their beliefs relative to reason or evidence

Reggie: Here's a question then: should we consider creationists as conspiracy theorists?

Achilles: Well, conspiracy is defined as an explanation which is different from the standard, official view. So some conspiracy theories may be true. The issue is whether the believer is reasonable. Depending on the religious view, I consider it delusional.

Sathvik: I don’t think that creationists should be considered conspiracy theorists because creationism is that everything is made from divine creations whereas conspiracy theorists support everything. Else including the divine.

Achilles: Well, there is no evidence for creation theory. If anything, creation theory contradicts more evidence than is explained. It has no predictive power. Does not fit within all of the other scientific information and established facts.

People conform to religious beliefs through the process of indoctrination from an early age. It is of a different kind of delusional belief than the schizophrenia spectrum and psychotic disorders. I still consider it a delusional thought.

People are religious because it helps with fear of death, terror management theory. They have a sense of community and give some sort of a moral compass. Religious markets to major life transitions culturally like birth, marriage and death ceremonies.

It serves a social and cultural function and people disregard evidence or reasoning based beliefs with the compartmentalization of beliefs via using faith for that which doesn't make sense as to not give up the social and psychological benefits.

The trump voters don't all agree with all of his behaviour but voting for him does condone the problematic stuff like the covid misinformation, the insurrection, denial of peaceful transition of power etc.

Reggie: should we still assume one is a paranoid schizophrenic if a conspiracy theory is actually true?

I don't think any government in any jurisdiction is guilt-free of COVID misinformation. As for Jan 6, that was the post-election.

More generally, I don't think anyone can honestly say that they have voted for a politician whose platform they agree with 100%. So naturally, there will be some political baggage that will be tolerated ('condoned'). That's like suggesting that every Conservative voter implicitly condones religion in schools and restricting abortion.

Achilles: In this case the delusions are contradictory and overly outlandish. They are not an organized alternative account with evidence.

Reggie: Is it though? Maybe some people just see issues with the official story. For example, JFK assassination or 9/11. To some, the 'magic bullet' theory and the collapse of Building 7 are quite outlandish lol.

Achilles: Yah those are good cases of alternative explanations which could be true. For the psychotic spectrum it's usually stuff like, people on television are speaking to me, i am wearing tinfoil so aliens can do mind control, the fbi has poisoned me and is controlling me etc.

We are presenting an argument which accounts for evidence and is open to alternatives. The delusional thinker dismisses evidence or reasoning.

Reggie: They could be delusional. Could just be scared or traumatized due to a previous experience. Might also just be a cognitive bias that can be corrected. To me, I would think that many flat earthers are otherwise regular people. I don't think every conspiracy theorist is like Alex Jones.

There are also many people who think that GMO and pesticides are going to kill you, or that we should be wearing masks at the park. ie. NDP/Green Party voters. So I don't think it's limited to Trumpers.

Nor should we be labeling or characterizing 74 million people as being allies to what is clearly a tiny fraction of the population.

Achilles: Agreed. Delusional thinking is not held by Trump voters only. What do you find is the issue with Trump as a political leader?

Reggie: Well, that was only part of my point lol. In the beginning, Trump was/is very effective at tapping into the economic pain of many unskilled workers, and attacking the political elite across the spectrum.

But even in 2016, he lost the popular vote. The only reason he won is because of America's electoral system. He won the swing states that Obama won previously. And by small margins, like in the tens of thousands.

It's not like he brainwashed Americans with MAGA hats. There were simply pockets of swing voters whom he won over.

In 2020, those swing states moved back to Biden. Plus Biden won Arizona, which was a huge loss but perhaps not too surprising given that this was John McCain's state. Political analysis aside though, Trump's strength is in his delivery, and ability to work the crowd.

Achilles: This is what I meant by fascist charisma.

Reggie: He successfully used A/B testing during rallies to determine that "Crooked Hillary" was more effective than "Lying Hillary."

But most successful politicians have that ability, no?

What did Trudeau have going for him other than his father's last name and nice hair? Lol

Achilles: Charisma yes but it became an issue when that was used towards the insurrection.

Reggie: Again, that was post-election. A Trump voter wouldn't have known, right? Mind you, in 2016, Trump was ready to say that the election was rigged. So what really has changed between old Trump and current Trump?

Achilles: Well he has had more situations to expose poor leadership.

Reggie: That's relative. In many ways, Bush was much worse (re. Iraq war)

Achilles: The WMDs was a problem or lack thereof. As well as the Iraqi people.

Reggie: He still made the call though. How many American soldiers died for that? What comparable decisions has Trump made? How many lives did Obama take in the Middle East? As President, one is always faced with situations to expose poor leadership.

Achilles: My issue with Trump accumulated due to those main points I raised earlier. He is more of an entertainer than a leader of the people.

Reggie: Sure, that makes sense. But what about his record while in office? Was he a fascist? Did he take away people's rights? Did he support mindless wars? Did he deregulate the financial system? Did he sacrifice more of the American economy to China? Certainly no more than any other President.

What defines a leader more: their words or actions?

In Canada, no Prime Minister was smoother than Brian Mulroney. He had a silver tongue. Yet this guy was one of Canada's most corrupt leaders.

Going back to this question though... While in office, Trump first and foremost should have done a better job dealing with the bigots and racists in his base. "Stand back and standby"? WTF was that?

But more recently, he shouldn't have taken this whole 'rigged election' thing as far as he did. He should've just stopped in Dec after the Supreme Court dismissed his claims. I get that all world leaders have an ego (it's almost a requirement). But for Trump, his ego and narcissism couldn't bear the thought of losing to Sleepy Joe.

Achilles: I will have to think more about what we have discussed.

Reggie: Stephen Harper's book gives an interesting perspective/analysis on conservatism and populism based on his experience in Canada. He addresses the rise of Trump and how conservatives should address it. Which is rather different from the usual attacks on Trumpism and populism which typically have come from the political left.

https://a.co/d/37o6goi

WaC: Working from Home

Sagar: Is working from home an oxymoron?

Achilles: Are you working or chilling?

Sathvik: Heck yeah it is. It would just give people an excuse to be lazy. Like showing up with pajama pants and a collared shirt. Office ready at the top and bed ready under the computer screen.

Achilles: As long as you are being productive and doing your job, how you're dressed doesn't seem to matter. We could say that being comfortable may actually increase productivity.

WaC: Narcissism in Relationships

Sathvik: For relationships, how do you make sure to give yourself love while not coming off as arrogant to your beau?

Is a 50/50 relationship the ideal type of relationship?

Achilles: Arrogance is not accepting when we are wrong. How does that have to do with self love?

Sathvik: I meant to say narcissistic. How do we make sure to give ourselves self love while maintaining our love for our beau?

Achilles: Well self love is different from narcissism. Self love is meeting your needs, taking space from others when you want to be alone

“Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a cluster B personality disorder defined as comprising a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), a constant need for admiration, and a lack of empathy.

In the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), [1] NPD is defined as comprising a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), a constant need for admiration, and a lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by the presence of at least 5 of the following 9 criteria:

A grandiose sense of self-importance

A preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

A belief that he or she is special and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people or institutions

A need for excessive admiration

A sense of entitlement

Interpersonally exploitative behavior

A lack of empathy

Envy of others or a belief that others are envious of him or her

A demonstration of arrogant and haughty behaviors or attitudes"

Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Practice Essentials, Background, Pathophysiology and Etiology

Reggie: I think this depends on the situation / context, and your approach in general. A start point might be to apply a simple heuristic -- ask yourself, "When I argue with my beau, how often am I right/wrong?"

There should be a balance here. If you find you are always backing down during fights, perhaps you are being too submissive or passive. Conversely, if you are always correct, maybe you're being too inflexible or selfish. Basically, in a relationship, there should be an overall balance of power between both individuals.

Another check might be to ask yourself, "What would I say to a close friend or my own child if they had this issue with their significant other?" That is, are you applying double standards? Why is your situation 'different'?

For example, say your significant other wanted to grab coffee with their ex-partner. They have a good reason for it, but it still makes you feel uneasy. What should you do? If you let them do it, are you not showing yourself enough self-love? If you don't let them go, are you not showing enough love?

Obviously, every situation is different. The key though is to be as objective as possible when making such a decision.

Counseling Discussion: Traumatic Relationships

If you have experienced a prolonged traumatic relationship, it can depreciate your sense of meaning in life. The time with this person has to be contextualized in a meaningful way so that your time is not perceived in a negative view. Making a coherent story of the past that is empowering and realistic that draws a boundary between what has happened and what you have chosen will be more constructive than being the victim of external forces.

Dealing with meaninglessness for a long time can lead some to lose value for life in general and contemplate suicide. This action can seem for some to be the only way to remove the painful suffering that they are experiencing on a daily basis. It is not that they do not want to exist anymore, but that they want the suffering to stop.

Existence in itself is valuable but there is a difference between our existence and the existence of inanimate objects. For example, a chair exists. . If the chair went into the fire, it wouldn't matter to the chair. It may be a loss because of the special nature of the chair, it was an artifact of some master crafter, or that it has some utility for us.

Our existence matters to us because we are self-aware beings who experience wellbeing and suffering. We create meaning in our lives and death is not necessarily problematic but a natural event in the cosmos. The problem is whether we lived a meaningful life before we died. To do this we have to utilize the power of our mind to guide us towards a life worth living.

We are conscious and that means that we can make decisions to create a life that is in line with the kinds of people we are. In terms of our past experiences, it may be useful to go back in time, in our minds, to an earlier age. Our story when we were children may have been very different from what our story is today. It is our job to connect these stories, to tell the story of what has happened to you and what you have done, as if you were telling it to your child self. Only when your child self agrees and is satisfied with the story is your reconstruction of your narrative complete.

If you had a fight with a dragon, let’s say, it is not necessarily a traumatic event. The way you perceive it and the actions you take during the conflict determine the meaning of the event. If you did not take certain actions then, you can learn them now to teach yourself that if you were faced with similar situations, you would not act the same way and hence the outcome would be different.

So, if I was burned by the dragon’s fire, I could get a shield that is fire resistant or some magic fire proof spell from my wizard buddy. It is non-action that is debilitating and the cause of hopelessness. Your agency as a conscious being is all that is required to change your present circumstances so that a past situation is not relieved. If your present circumstances are changed, you will feel different. This theory is testable so try it out.

The story we were telling ourselves as children changed based on three primary factors: the environment impacted us in some way, other people did stuff to us, or we did stuff that affected our lives. In the context of meaning in our lives, what we do has the most impact on our story. In regards to the environment or others, our response to those two factors is what matters. The story is not about the environment or this other person, the story is about us. When the narrative we tell ourselves switches subject from us to the environment or some other person, we will not feel right. We have to find a way to incorporate ourselves into the story. This constructive narrative approach is the treatment plan for people who suffer from PTSD.

It is important to keep in mind what we are in control of. Some wisdom from christian theology is the serenity prayer modified for a secular purpose:

The utility and relevance of this is in how we can determine what is in our control and the actions we can take. If something is not in our control, it is a waste of our emotional and cognitive energy to be upset about it and can damage the meaning we derive from ourselves and experiences by tainting our narrative.

Fundamentally, what we are in control of is what matters. With the right tools and the correct environment we can create a meaningful context no matter what has happened. There is a way to realistically frame experiences where we are placed in such a way that our feelings are validated and identity intact. To do this we may have to deal with the experiences we have not integrated in a healthy way from our narrative. From a healthy environment, support and correct tools we can construct a meaningful story of what happened to us and what we did from the beginning until the present.

This process involves the creation of a meta self that is beyond any specific experience and composes the amalgamation of experiences in general. Some of these experiences were not really good but we can see ourselves from a higher ordered context than just the person within that specific time and place. Sometimes it is useful to see a mental health professional like a clinical psychologist or counselor to help with this process. You are able to do it on your own by reflecting on these experiences, writing down what happened and reconstructing the story in such a way that it is not debilitating, creating a new environment now that necessarily prevents recurrences of these experiences and learning responses to past situations so that you know what to do if they happened again.

Love.

Reflections: The Mad King

The king is mad. Not just now but often. It is a means that he uses to deal with people and problems. What are you to do? A warrior would simply fight the mad king or anyone for that matter that is being aggressive. But what if you are the king's knight? The knight has a duty to the king, to act in the king’s best interest even when the king himself is against his best interest.

You will have to let the king make mistakes and not take it personally when those mistakes affect you. The king, due to his disposition, will necessarily make these kinds of mistakes so you know what to expect. It will not come out of nowhere.

To be a warrior or knight is to not have fear of aggression or at least to act in the face of aggression. Not allowing oneself to be consumed by intimidation and fear is necessary to be a warrior or a knight.

The difference is that the knight has a duty to the king. As if one a chess board, the knight is either black or white and does not attack his own side. The warrior is not bound to any side and can attack anyone who he must. To be the knight is to act in the interest of the people you defend. The warrior is concerned with battle for the sake of victory. The knight’s priorities are different. The knight is concerned with the people in general and his duty to them, to keep the place safe. The warrior will fight any battle no matter who it is. The knight is noble, and will only fight just battles.

The king is the commander of the situation or at least responsible for it. The king’s madness makes it so that his commands are not just. The knight will not fight the king as the warrior would. The knight does, however, stand up to the king when necessary. The knight does not have fear of the king but understands how power is relative. In this context, the king and the king’s ally’s have power.

On the chessboard, certain situations will yield the value of each piece. Each piece has certain moves that are more or less valuable depending on the placement and orientation of that piece to other pieces. Only through experience in different situations can one determine the value to the king. The king must see that you will not strike them down with aggression when they are wrong but also stand up to them without fear.

Social situations are like the chessboard but multiple games. It is over the course of many games that the value of your position and role are determined. How you act and what you choose to do will show itself when faced with certain kinds of circumstances. Others, placed in the same position, would not act the same way. Therefore, the value of your role is determined by your actions. Your actions are what you choose to do, in contrast to your behaviour, which is automatic and habitual. You can choose to modify your behaviour, but this takes time. Your role is defined by the actions you take over time, not specific behaviours that you make. In the extreme circumstance, a very bad behaviour can be debilitating to your role, but most often it can be corrected by a counterbalance of appropriate actions. You will form new habitual behaviours after acting in such a way for an extended period of time.

© Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com, 2018-22. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.