Philosophism

[wolf]

The split mind of schizophrenia has nothing to to with more than one personality ... it's a disconnent between perception and reality.

Multiple personalities, or what we call Dissociative Identity Disorder these days, is an artificial condition, inflicted upon suggestable patients by therapists who are either unscrupulous, or incompetent.

[Dunlavy]

Good to know, well, ignore what I said about that then.

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

What the hell? when did logic become an "optional" component of philosophy? I think you want this forum instead

Never stated it was optional. Just a methodology. logic- "branch of philosophy that studies the metods and principles of correct reasoning."

ethics- "area of philosophy that analyzes the good and right thing to do."

metaphysics- "area of philosophy studying what is real"

Aesthetics-"area of philosophy that studies beauty especially in the arts."

Classic Philosophical Questions- eight edition by James A. Gould

"This we do affirm - that if truth is to be sougtht in every division of philosophy, we must, before all else, possess trustworthy principles and methods for the discernment of truth. Now the Logical branch is that which includes theory of criteria and proofs: so it is with this that we ought to make our beginnings." - SEXTUS EMPIRICUS

"Bad reasoning as well as good reasoning is possible; and this fact is the foundation of the practical side of logic."-CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE

[Brown Thrasher]

Thanks for your proposition of the forum I should visit. I enjoyed viewing it. I found it thought provoking. However, I still enjoy the philosophy forum. I may learn something.........

[Dunlavy]

Meaning that you haven't yet?

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by wolf

The split mind of schizophrenia has nothing to to with more than one personality ... it's a disconnent between perception and reality.

Multiple personalities, or what we call Dissociative Identity Disorder these days, is an artificial condition, inflicted upon suggestable patients by therapists who are either unscrupulous, or incompetent.

Schizophrenia as defined by DSM-IV-R: Prescence of psychotic symtoms in an active phase.
!.delusions, prominent hallucinatios (throughout the day for several days or several times a week, each period not be limited to a few brief moments.
incoherance or marked loosening of associations, catatonic behavior, flat or grossly inappropriate affect.

2.Bizarre delusions(ie, involving a phenonomen that the person's culture would regard totally out of the norm.)

3. prominent hallucinations whether auditory or visual. Ie. two or more voices conversing with each other.

Schizophrenia is listed on AxisI of the four axis which would consider it a mental disease. There are also personality disorders on AxisII such as paranoid, schzoid, and schizotypal disorder that may mimic schizophrenia. Personality disorders are not considered a mental disease as major depression, or bi-polar disorder,etc...Personality disorders are usually longstanding and others consider their behavior troublesome.
Dissassociative disorder can be depersonalization disorders, MPD, Psychogenic amnesia and fugue. I think MPD is interesting their has been quite a deal of contoversy over the issue. The overwhelming view is that people that have been classified with this disorder were severely abused as children. This seems to be why you see this form of dissassociative disorder in women who were sexually abused as children. I find your statement that a dissassociative disorder: "is an artificial condition inflicted upon suggestable patients by therapist who are either unscrupulous or incompetent" a bit subjective at best.
Btw there are psychogenic drugs that can also cause a shortlived diassassociative state; such as PCP and Ketamine.......

[Dunlavy]

Woot, Schizophrenia debate, now!

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Schrodinger, you said something interesting in building a taxonomy for "belief" and "fact" that I think bears further investigation.

Lets take the definitions you've given for each (i'm assuming they're from OED or dictionary.com, or some such?) and construct the relationship between them.

Close enough - American Heritage Dictionary, online version.

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

In normal, empirical investigation, the causal chain of knowledge goes something like this

[thing in reality] --> [perception of thing in reality(sensate or logical)] --> [knowledge construct of perceptions] --> [belief in knowledge construct]

Take this chain in relationship to the existence of the chair I'm currently sitting in.

[chair exists] --> [I perceive visual and tactile information from the existence of the chair] --> [I interpret the perceived data as being evidence of a chair existing in reality, and reduce the perceptions down to that knowledge construct] --> [I believe in the existence of the chair in reality, to such a degree that i act in accordance with that belief, and sit in the chair]

Note that in this case, the difference between fact and belief becomes a question of degrees; we might say that a fact is a belief that has reached a certain threshold of evidence so as to be normatively accepted by any reasonable person with access to the same data. What we *cannot* say (in terms of our own mental states) is that a fact is a thing which exists in reality, because we have no access to that information! We only have access to our perceptions and knowledge constructs of it. We can speak ideally about things in actual existence, but in terms of our own personal knowledge, there is in no sense a distinction between belief and fact - a fact is a belief of a certain type.

True, we can "believe" in facts. We can also believe in superstitions, religious dogma, magic, or politicians. What is the difference between soeone who has no understanding of science, yet accepts the atomic theory; versus a fundamentalist who believes in the "rapture index"? Very little, really. One believes blindly in science, and the other believes blindly in the Bible as the ultimate authority. If I believe blindly in the atomic theory or the second law of thermodynamics without ever having studied the observations and without understanding the logical steps which gave rise to these these two constructs, I'm really no more enlightened in my thinking than a peasant in the Middle Ages who believed the sun and the rest of the universe rotated around the earth.

It's important to note that a fact is still contingent on the accuracy of the data received and the accuracy of the knowledge construct drawn from it. If i find a way to alter your brain state so that you perceive a chair in every normative way, even though that chair does not exits, for you that chair reaches the threshold of being fact. You "believe" it to be real, right up to the point where you try to sit in it, and your ass hits the Persian throw rug under it instead. At that point, you have new perceptions that alter your knowledge construct, and so your belief.

I would submit that in the example above, you are describing an individual who suffers from a delusion, and calls that delusion "fact." I may see a chair where no one else does because my brain chemistry or ability to percieve has in some way been altered, but my belief does not make a fact out of something which has no basis in reality.

[smoothmoniker]

my point is that we're all in exactly the same state as the deluded person. We have no access to the "thing-in-reality", the fact itself, and we are all to the same degree as the deluded person reliant on the only information that we have access to, the perceptions and knowledge constructs that ensue.

Gimme a couple hours, schroed. I've realized that this thread isn't the best place to hash this out, so I'm going to start and epistemology thread. coming soon to a cellar near you!

-sm

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by Dunlavy

Meaning that you haven't yet?

No, I've learned a great deal. However it was mostly about personalities not philosophy. For example, I have learned that I still have a tendency towards passive-aggresive behavior. I have learned a great deal about others tendencies as well. There are some very intellegent people on this site, but some appear to need others to know this about them. There is a personality disorder called Narcisism. Most people with this personality disorder which is listed on AxisII of the DSMIV-R, have a hard time accepting or even trying to understand others perspectives. It is almost impossible, to see anything other than through their own eyes.........Don't get me wrong, I am not saying this is the case of the majority of people who post on this site. I think the majority of people posting are smart people who enjoy debate.

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by Dunlavy

Meaning that you haven't yet?

No, I've learned a great deal. However it was mostly about personalities not philosophy. For example, I have learned that I still have a tendency towards passive-aggresive behavior. I have learned a great deal about others tendencies as well. There are some very intellegent people on this site, but some appear to need others to know this about them. There is a personality disorder called Narcisism. Most people with this personality disorder which is listed on AxisII of the DSMIV-R, have a hard time accepting or even trying to understand others perspectives. It is almost impossible, to see anything other than through their own eyes.........Don't get me wrong, I am not saying this is the case of the majority of people who post on this site. I think the majority of people posting are smart people who enjoy debate.

[Dunlavy]

hum... *reads the posts* Oh, whew.... At first I thought is was Deja Vu again. ^_^

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by Dunlavy

hum... *reads the posts* Oh, whew.... At first I thought is was Deja Vu again. ^_^

Sorry about posting the post twice. I was in the middle of something, and I did not realize the mistake. People who realize their mistakes and apologize are usually to an extent fairly healthy.However, people who have a problem with this are usually have narcisistic tendecies. These people do not have the capacity for empathy....

"Deja Vu"" could be considered a topic of the mystical order, such as reincarnation.

Has the people as a whole lost the ability for social politeness?

[Dunlavy]

I am joking, monsieur. I apologize if my comment came off as me snidely pointing out your mistake.

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by Dunlavy

I am joking, monsieur. I apologize if my comment came off as me snidely pointing out your mistake.

I accept your apology. A bit of advice, stay on the road less traveled. THere appears to be a "click" for lack of better words that have nothing better to do than degrade others. I think that is the road most travelled. I compliment you on your ability to follow the narrow path.....