u/Other_Attention_2382

Winnicott argued that the perfect mother is actually damaging to a child. By explicitly stating that parents must be imperfect to foster healthy psychological independence.

In infancy total perfection and safe environment is required, after that a good enough parent.

I think everyone would agree on here about that, right? Do you want to breed little narcissists who were formed from a perfect world?

If a parent is determined by their own history to occasionally misattune to their child, blaming them morally for that failure ignores the psychological determinism at play?

They are called "Formative years" for a reason.

Framing the parent's misattunements as necessary failures removes the paralyzing weight of moral blame and places the focus squarely on child development, psychological determinism, and relationship repair.

Failure leads to psychological independence.

If parents failing the child is unavoidable then what is left is repair, not moral responsibility?

✌️ Peace

Compatabilist's my dear friends ❤️.

Either your God ordained you fate, or he did not.

You can't have your cake and eat it...

Been watching interviews of him on YT.

Fascinating character. Although i never followed The Fall much as i like a good melody, i can see the appeal to him as he almost seems to be capable to see things only through his own viewpoint?

On the one hand I admire him for his anti-establishment anti everything views, and on the other he reminds me of just another narcissistic politician who can fire 60 staff on a whim without needing any connection to people.

For a group named after an Albert Camus book, i cant make out if its brilliant Absurdism or more just absurd?

Hard Determinism and Nihilism can exist side by side, but when you put Nihilism next to Compatalism it feels like you are moving the metaphysics goal posts with definitions.

Nihilism sort of makes sense if determinism is a reality. You are born a meat robot, if you are lucky you enjoy the ride to the top of a few hills, where you realise satisfaction is fleeting as it requires contrast, you rinse and repeat, followed by decay disease in everyone you care about, and finally you die.

But on the bright side there is no YOU in the above....unless you redefine it. 😆

Are we talking metaphysical honesty or societal protection with Compatabilism?

Are you saying to an individual with individual life experiences and set genetics that your desires are not yours and life has no inherent meaning so you need to follow society to create meaning, or just telling them to imagine that life has meaning as the Nobel lie?

Under the rules of Determinism the only difference between an empath and a psychopath is one suffers when they see others suffer, and the other gets enjoyment out of another's suffering.

Unless you admit you want moral responsibility to shape society?

Is Compatabilism essentially shape shifting?

Was modern Compatabilism born out of a re-definition under Calvanism, placing the state in charge of Determinism's laws?

God and Metaphysics?

Metaphysics vs chaos?

Peace be with all (unless its not).✌️

Bertrand Russell

I believe in psychology they say acceptance leads to change "The Paradox of change" etc. Acceptance means looking inward, self-esteem looking outward/comparison.

Acceptance was a big part of Montaigne's philosophy over self esteem i believe.

Determinists would say acceptance is also part of the chain, but how would you argue against this? ;

"Based on philosophical, systems-thinking, and cognitive perspectives : Understanding the chain allows us to act upon it, but that action is simultaneously a new link"

"That the awareness of the chain creates a reflexive feedback loop that fundamentally alters the nature of the "chain" itself, breaking the purely linear causal model"

"If acceptance is simply a, say, "pre-ordained brain state," it cannot also be a rational conclusion based on evidence. If it is purely causal, the belief has no inherent truth value"

So in YOUR experience does long term determinism as a philosophy mean it becomes part of the chain>>>dropping ego>>>acceptance>>>change>>>intellectual freedom>>>better problem solving?

Or are we all more like Shopenhauer's extreme fixed character at birth than any of the above?

✌️ Peace

Be gentle....

Under Calvanism "acting on one's own desires" was the bridge that connected human responsibility to divine sovereignty.

"John Calvin and later theologians like Jonathan Edwards argued that humans are free from external compulsion but bound by their own nature (total depravity)"

"God is the first and supreme cause, that he may act in and with every second cause, and that for the strengthening of their efficiency and not the removal of it."
— Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology"

"Hume's analysis of human motivation, particularly his emphasis on human selfishness and limited generosity, is seen as a secularized adaptation of the doctrine of "Total Depravity"" (Also sounds abit Freud)

"They were paradoxically passive in their trust of God's final will, yet hyper-active in their efforts to live according to that will"

If our beliefs are just accidental collocations of atoms, then the logical validity of our scientific theories seems to be rendered suspect?

If a thought is just a physical chemical reaction (atoms colliding), how can we trust it to be logical?

If our brains are designed for survival and the truth gets us killed?

Evolution cares about behavior, not truth.

Peace✌️

One for the intellectuals on here, its deep.😆

How would a Compatabilist view John Rambo the trained to be killing machine soldier vs Rambo's behaviour in civie Street?

"The Mirror stage". Narcissus.

"The lack" could be seen as a narcissists feelings of inadequacy.

"The Desire of the other". A narcissist's need for admiration.

I get the human self centerdness stuff, but I guess I struggle with the idea that it's THE main focus with the human psyche?

When I read posts about moral responsibility and Determinism on here I get the impression that the focus is always about a person's individual chain of cause and effect.

But if you focus on base human psychology as a whole, then could you say that humans need their casual chains to be steered through education and law, because without it and left to their own devices they are more narcissistic wild savages, than rational beings?

Freud seemed the most pessimistic on human nature with regards to psychology ;

• "It is inherent in human nature to consider a thing untrue if one does not like it".
• "Humanity is in the highest degree irrational, so that there is no prospect of influencing it by reasonable arguments".
• I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash...".
• "The first requisite of civilization is that of justice"

Lacan believed we actually look to "The Big Other". That we look to the Big Other to know how to behave. It is the imagined authority that guarantees the meaning of our words and the validity of our social interactions, such as shaking hands or following rules.

According to Lacan, the Law prevents the subject from pursuing an excessive, self-destructive pleasure known as jouissance. The Law sets boundaries (castration) that make social life possible by regulating this destructive excess. 

Jung viewed self-centeredness as a fundamental biological and psychological imperative for survival and individual development.

In his later life, Bertrand Russell famously concluded that mathematics is a "logical fiction" or, more accurately, a set of tautologies (statements true by definition) that do not describe the real world. 

As far as mathematics go's he knew his shit.

More recently Hannah Fry has touched on this subject.

If 2+2=4 is a logical fiction then does that make causation a mental construct imposed upon the world by human beings, rather than a fact observed in physics?

Am I projecting my casual interest in psychology onto finding reasons to believe in Hume's Causation and Induction, and psychological projections? 😆

Peace✌️.

Schopenhauer firmly believed that a person's fundamental character is fixed and innate from birth. He argued that our moral and intellectual qualities are "natural data" that remain unalterable throughout our entire lives.

If neuroscience and Psychoanalysis strongly disagree with that level of Determinism, where does the leap of faith come from with followers?