|existentialism ° art ° poetry ° exquisite corpse ° chat ° search engine|
|( the cry ) Philosophy Discussion Board|
Posted by gotyournumberpal on Thursday, December 12, 2002 at 21:11:08 :
In Reply to: Re: For the record posted by Spratley on Thursday, December 12, 2002 at 14:57:31 :
What you call insight might also be a case of reading in and projecting yourself. It is always dangerous to think that you know more about another person than they know about themselves. You have feelings, you may act out angrily when you're hurt as most people do, but psychotics by definition are not like most people, they do not have the same inner landscape and are not motivated in the same way that most normal people are, and this abnormality is evident in their anti-social behavior. There are many children who have unhappy upbringings, who are hurt, but they don't all go around torturing animals, they don't all grow up to be serial killers, or Internet board bullies.
The point I am making is that you don't know and will never know the inner landscape of any other person but yourself, and you ought not to speak as if you do. To operate under the premise that you can know the inner psychological workings of another person will cause you to err more often than not in your judgements of other people. Instead of dealing with what is right in front of you, what can be seen and evaluated on its own terms by the behavior, you are poking around in someone else's psyche, and that should be off limits to you or anyone.
I don't mean to sound like I'm chiding you, I just think you're barking up the wrong tree, though all in all I have to say that I commend you for shining a light on board bullying. Most peope will look the otherway or deny the existence of a bully in their midst, and this usually empowers the predator while leaving his prey defenseless. I would simply suggest that you stick to what can be known, what is in evidence, and not what you read in by your own "insights" into the psychology of the person, but confine your analysis to the psychodynamics of their behavior.
: : You're making some big assumptions. Never assume anything about a person that can't be verified by their actions. I don't know that he's in pain and neither do you. The only thing we know from his behavior is that he likes to inflict pain. Maybe you don't understand the pathology of a sociopath. They have no feelings. It is because they feel no pain and no empathy that they seek stimulation from the only thing that excites them, which is violence. The more you respond the more you give him an excuse to act out that urge, and this only stimulates his craving for more.
: : You're playing with fire.
: : Perhaps your intellect and time would be better served by analyzing the conditions of the society that breeds the serial bully behaviors coming to light through the Internet.
: There's assumption and then there's insight. IF one chooses to look at things a certain way, all conclusions and suppositions and statements of understanding and discernment that fall short of deductive proof can be called assumptions. Someone weighs evidence, draws a conclusion and states that conclusion. IF there is no proof then anyone can say it is just an assumption.
: But I have thought alot about this topic of "discussion board trolls," I'm a student of human behavior and motivations. If I have any claim to remarkable intelligence, a good portion of it lies in understand how and why people do things. The conlcusion that I have drawn is that people who devalue others, and who over-value themselves, and use these valuations to try to make others feel less valuable etc. usually feel an awful lot of pain themselves. You may not come to the same conclusion, but I trust my own judgement on this matter.
: I could turn your supposition that I do not understand the pathology of the sociaopath back onto you. As I understand things, no one feels no feelings. People may not do a healthy job of integrating those feelings, people may not accept that they have feelings, people may push their feelings so far down that they build up enormous and harmful pressure which they have to relieve by spewing them onto other people. But no one is devoid of feelings as far as I have perceived things.
: Why does a person behave angrily if not because they are angry? Why does a person hurt another unless they have a feeling inside which causes them to want to hurt another? You have proposed that it is because behaving as if they have feelings is the only way to have feelings. My opinion on this is that you're putting the cart before the horse. I'd like to talk about this more --I don;t want you to feel that I am tossing out your idea. I just don't share the idea and would like to know more about where it comes from, how it carries weight with you, etc. But as far as personal beleifs go --I don't see how a peson can look as if they have a feeling without having that feeling.
: I may well insight him. But that doesn't bother me for two reasons. The more I see of his behaviors, the better chance I have of understanding them. Secodly, the more he acts out, the better chance there is that he'll catch a look at himself in the mirror and start asking himself questions. I will try to be careful not to insight him with disrespectful invective. But I will ask him questions, and I will stand up for myself and others that are feeling his wrath.
: You say I am playing with fire. I say that in this case, the fire can't possibly burn. Does he think I've never been called a loser before? Does he think that saying his nasty things with greater fervor means something more thanit did when he was just tossing off ugly comments? He may make a target of me. But somehow I don't care --I'd rather he focus his attention on me than focus it on everyone at once.
: As for spending time instead on studying the society that breeds him. 1.) I do. 2.)The individual and the society producing the individual are a whole. . . understanding the individual brings understanding of the formatie forces. Understanding the society brings understanding of the individual. 3.)Society doesn't say nasty things to people that don't deserve it. I won't shift tro something abstract when something conrete is right in front of me to look at.
Post a Followup