We are well beyond that point already. I spent too much time replying in that old thread; I even spent too much time rereading my old posts last night.
If you still cannot back up your claims, or counter my—rational!—objections, rationally (i.e., with logic); if we still have to wait for your utopia to come about, as in Communism or Christianity: then I’ll pass.
Mental illness is a product of the environment in which we live. For all intense and purposes, it is not genetic. When the triggers are eliminated, virtually ALL mental illness will be a thing of the past.
I am also a Special Ed graduate. This knowledge prevents those things that are caused by man’s ignorance. If Down’s syndrome is a genetic problem, then no, we need to continue to search for answers. But if Autism is caused by mercury in the vaccinations (which is an unknown at this point), then yes, it could have an effect. Once we are given free reign to do anything we want, we suddenly won’t want to do anything that could lead to a situation that we would be responsible for.
It makes no sense. The first sentence is correct, the second is bizarre, as genes are obviously part of the environment, the third is correct though genes are one of the triggers. Sure, eliminate genes and you also eliminate mental illness.
I don’t think humans can transcend the issue of mental illness given the same life circumstances that many have had to deal with. But we can eliminate the factors that lead to mental illness which, for the most part, are environmental (which encompass personal-relationships). The only way we will know how prevalent other causes are is when this knowledge is put into effect. If there is any mental illness that comes directly from genetics or some unrelated source, we will have more definitive knowledge at that time.
I don’t disagree that some people are genetically more predisposed to mental illness given the same environment than someone else. But if that trigger is never activated, the genes won’t have an opportunity to express themselves in this way.
Well, certainly some sub-groupings of Autism are exclusively genetic (there’s no one thing “autism”, of course).
Just as an aside, do you just post in your own threads, or do you join into others. Insofar as one has something to say, I think it’s useful to spread oneself around and enter one’s thoughts under the auspices of others’ projects. This allows everyone to develop a social connection which is strengthened in a more diverse manner. It also allows one to refine one’s own thoughts in a broader manner.
Sometimes I read other threads but I don’t have the time to contribute as much as I’d like. I went to the link you gave me, and from what I read it seems like an interesting theory although I would need a lot more clarity to make any comments.
Fair enough, though that does leave the impression that you’re only interested in your own thought, and not those of others, …and that might be read as your not feeling others’ thoughts are worth your time… just sayin’.
Do you mean that in the Kantian sense? Is your project at all related to Kant’s notion of perpetual peace?
Tell people, "we know nothing therefore I own you.
Seriously, so much better than telling people “oh yeah well i can connect 5 dots!” Take that toddler bitches.
Socrates argued that the most intellectual position one might hold was confusion accompanied with a strong desire to learn, so he tried to share that discovery.
The discovery he made a long ass time ago, that people still don’t get.
Keep stickin’ their hands in the magic bag that is their imagination, reaching for something that would probably look about as good(shitty) and original(sriously wats the point) as contemporary American art so they can wave it like they suffered for it. (no offense artists, im one myself =P )
But really.
Maybe all the positions we take are too strong? And we are just eyes in a dark sea of consciousness. But we just don’t accept enough, to understand? And I believe Socrates comes to more conclusions than he can really prove. Perhaps the most renowned philosopher is at flaw, because his words are crushed by his lack in ability to make them substantial. Relevant to anything other than ego/emotion or material. Just like us!
For what it’s worth, having ploughed through part one, I’m afraid I don’t find it particularly philosophically revolutionary, and the (limited) positions it argues against are not very well-presented. The writing style alone doesn’t encourage me to read any further, but on top of that the standard of philosophical thought doesn’t seem very high, the arguments are very basically presented and show no awareness of criticism, and the author seems to think that his conclusions are far more wonderful than seems justified. As an example, the logic that determinism means “free will doesn’t exist” means “it’s irrational to blame someone” shows a vastly oversimplified approach to the function of blame/censure/punishment and what we mean when we say “free will”.
However, it seems from the other thread that you are utterly convinced of its truth and will only treat any criticism as a symptom of my failure to understand this wonderful work, so let’s pass each other by and continue on our respective journeys.
Just because I am convinced of the truth does not mean I’m wrong in this conviction. Putting aside his writing style, your synopsis of the discovery is lacking miserably. Obviously, you skimmed over portions of his work when he asked every reader to please refrain from this as the first two chapters must be carefully studied. Your saying he thinks his conclusions are more wonderful than is justified is unjusifiable. I am responding to you in this way not because of your criticism (if it was legitimate), but because you have not understood the discovery in anyway whatsoever, which is a fact. He never said that it is irrational to blame someone. In fact, he said we must blame as a natural reaction to someone hurting us. It is not oversimplified in its blueprint form. You obviously don’t understand the very core of his discovery, or you wouldn’t jump to these premature conclusions. You are no different than many people who don’t take the time to truly understand the concept put forth, but think you are now an authority. I agree that you should go your merry way because this book is not meant for your ears.
No, but it implies strongly that you’re not here to debate and discuss but proselytise. That’s all I was saying.
I don’t agree with your counter-argument, as a natural reaction has nothing to do with what is rational. Top of page 70, “For God’s mathematical law… … to be broken” - it is apparently a mathematical fact available to anyone deeply analysing matters that man is not to blame for what he does. This is stated in capitals as a commandment on the next page. How is it rational to blame someone contra mathematical facts? What do you understand by “rational”?
Also, first half of page 76, “The very moment… …positively prevents.”
Regarding my thoughts on his writing style and his thoughts on his own work, it’s merely my opinion. De gustibus non est disputandum, and all that.
As predicted - this book doesn’t have critics, just seas of people who Can’t Grasp The Message. I don’t claim any authority beyond having read the words presented. Perhaps I should have used my ears…
Who are the seas of people who don’t grasp the message except for those people who have not taken the time to read the book carefully and without prejudgment? Of those who have read it the way it is supposed to be read, they are intrigued and are desiring to spread word of this knowledge.
