Even in politics - it is better to be principled and lose because of it, than to gain the whole world and lose your soul. being principled is in truth still your best bet to win. If even that doesn't get you victory, nothing else can, not even being a crook. — Agustino

Losing due to sticking to one's principles I agree is better than winning by being crooked, but I would call that 'spiritual success' not 'worldly success'; such "losing" is not counted as worldly success under the ordinary definition. Perhaps you have some other conception of worldly success in mind?

I don't see how this is possible. He may try to feign it, but since he lacks the first-person understanding of empathy, his feigning will only ever be very imperfect. It's like me trying to feign that I'm in love with someone without ever having experienced love myself. — Agustino

People do feign falling in love, and people who are lonely and hungry for love will fall for the deceit enthusiastically, almost conspiring to maintain the fantasy. And they won't thank you for disabusing them, and they will get hurt. I'm very glad you lack that ability. I'm a poor actor too. But assuredly one can be a passably good actor by mere imitation and without empathy.

And in the context of worldly goals; one person may have very modest goals and succeed in all of them, while another may have fantastic aspirations and achieve them only to a moderate, or even small degree, and yet achieve far more, in worldly measures such as money, fame, power and so on than the first. Who, then would be the greater failure? Or think of art; what is better; to achieve greatness but fail to be recognized or to achieve universal acclaim and yet be a mediocrity? — John

I have mentioned Van Gogh, a great artist who had serious enough psychological problems to harm himself, and be hospitalised more than once.

Consider Winston Churchill. A great man, a great leader, a great success, who suffered all his life from depression.

Or there is the phenomenon of the autistic savant. It is thought that Mozart was one.

The game of trying to sanity equal to success or strength simply doesn't work, because we are not one dimensional beings. One can have abilities and disabilities at the same time, and they can be the same thing. And one can have disabilities in one area and great talent in another.

Losing due to sticking to one's principles I agree is better than winning by being crooked, but I would call that 'spiritual success' not 'worldly success'; such "losing" is not counted as worldly success under the ordinary definition. Perhaps you have some other conception of worldly success in mind? — John

No but I'm saying that you will fail worldly, guaranteed, if you are crooked. If you stick to your principles and play your cards as well as it's possible to play them in that situation (by being sly as a serpent), you stand the best chance of winning in the world as well. If even in those circumstances you lose worldly, then you could have done nothing better - winning simply didn't happen to be in the cards God gave you.

Now you may count becoming Prime Minister, or President or whatever as worldly success, but that depends. It's not always a success. It also matters what you can do from that position, how loyal your people are to your cause, and so forth. What use is getting there if it turns out you can't even apply your principles? What use is getting there if you can't even do the good you intend to do? And remember that immorality will always haunt you - you can never escape it.

People do feign falling in love, and people who are lonely and hungry for love will fall for the deceit enthusiastically, almost conspiring to maintain the fantasy. — unenlightened

Sure, but most who do feign have been in love before and know what it's like. Hence they can feign it - they have first-person knowledge of it.

But assuredly one can be a passably good actor by mere imitation and without empathy. — unenlightened

Sure, but as I said, that only works up to a point. I can't believe that one who lacks the capacity for empathy can feign empathy with there being absolutely no phenomenological difference. That's just impossible in my mind, because the person simply lacks the knowledge that he or she could have had from the first person perspective. Sure, he can be a good actor up to a point - but the best actors are always those who actually make themselves feel it. But those who can't feel, can't make themselves feel it, and therefore they can never be great actors either.

Yes, but I don't see how it can be claimed that sticking to your principles would be either more or less likely to bring worldly success. It all depends on what profession one is thinking of, what kind of milieu one would be working in, what kinds of people one happens to be surrounded by, and so on.

What use is getting there if it turns out you can't even apply your principles? What use is getting there if you can't even do the good you intend to do? And remember that immorality will always haunt you - you can never escape it. — Agustino

I think what you are alluding to here would more rightly be called spiritual or ethical failure, in the sense of failing to realize one's ideals (and not necessarily through any particularly significant fault of one's own; think of Obama) than worldly failure.

Yes, I agree completely with what you say.

Yes, but I don't see how it can be claimed that sticking to your principles would be either more or less likely to bring worldly success. It all depends on what profession one is thinking of, what kind of milieu one would be working in, what kinds of people one happens to be surrounded by, and so on. — John

Okay, suppose I gain political power by murdering my political enemies and decimating (physically) the opposition. I currently control directly, or through henchmen all the state's political institutions. Now some people who are currently allied with me will know about this. In their minds, regardless of how I act to them, regardless of what I shall do, I will always be a ruthless and ultimately dangerous man, who could any day do the same to them. Now what will they do? They're not stupid. They will feign alliance to me, and at any opportune moment, will seek to get rid of me, in the same violent and ruthless fashion that I have exterminated my own opposition to gain power - and moreover, they will feel right to do it, because I'm not lawfully there in the first place. What's more important, I won't be able to distinguish ally from foe anymore, because the people I will be surrounded by will be just like me - lacking principle, because those with principle are long gone - they would never agree to work with me. So sure, I have gained victory, but at what price? I'm guaranteed to lose that victory - it's just a matter of time. A crooked success is inherently unstable and thus never worth it.

But on the contrary, if I am principled, but sly as a snake, than if someone tries to outmanuver me, if someone else tries to kill me, trick me, or otherwise get me out of their way - then I can know it, and I can exploit it - because whoever is immoral exposes themselves to the greatest of dangers. But showing kindness - even to an enemy - especially to an enemy - wins them over. Forgiveness - your people knowing that you are forgiving - that is much better than them knowing you are ruthless. Really, goodness always beats evil. Morality always trumps immorality. It's simply a matter of time.

It's an extreme example, but that's what I ultimately mean. Regardless of profession - I believe that ultimately being a crook will inevitably lead to destruction (not necessarily physical destruction, but destruction nevertheless, whether financial, etc). It's just impossible to win being a crook. But it is possible, though not certain, to win (whatever that means in the chosen profession) while following principles. The two are not contradictory - ethics and pragmatism.

A lot of people are of two kinds. Those that see themselves as just average normal people, and those that see themselves as great, and everyone else idiots for not realizing it. I think that virtue does require appreciation, or recognition, or a reception that justifies its belief in some sense. It may be cognitively healthy to think we're great, or whatever, but we often don't appreciate the relative significance or insignificance of our ideas until they're pointed out to us. I think that anything good just gets absorbed into the zeitgeist, and becomes second nature.

Van Gogh probably didn't cut his own ear off. Firstly it was just a piece, and secondly, a lot of historians think that it's more likely that his violent roommate cut the piece off of his ear during one of their fights.

A lot of people are of two kinds. Those that see themselves as just average normal people, and those that see themselves as great, and everyone else idiots for not realizing it. — Wosret

I don't see it this way. All great people see themselves as great - it simply cannot be otherwise, they would never be great if they don't first of all see themselves as great. To dare for example to study anatomy all by yourself - like Da Vinci - and achieve his knowledge - that requires very big balls. You must see yourself as a genius - if you don't, you won't even begin. And to be able to achieve anything, you must first of all make the first step. This obviously has nothing to do with how you see other people. It's quite petty to think that others are idiots for not realising you're a genius. If you think that, the truth is, you're the fucking idiot for failing to make them realise it.

Now there's the other kind of people. Those people, who see themselves as average and normal as you call them. They are apparently nicer folks than the genius, with the only difference that they are the ones who always get jealous, who always want what someone else has, who always complain - the genius is never jealous, never complains, never wants what others have. They are the ones who resort to small and petty lies to get something, they are the ones who willingly accept to be guards at concentration camps - THEY are the ones. Not the genius. Not the great man. The great man will never bow his head to evil, will never accept to serve immorality or bat for the devil. And the man who doesn't see himself as great, but likes to THINK of himself as great - he is a special kind of these "normal and average" people, whose sole concern is the fact that others don't see him as great. There's many of those. So many! More than you'd realise - and many aren't even aware they are like this. For them it's not about BEING great, but about being SEEN as great by others.

So you're saying either that thinking oneself to be great is constitutive of greatness, or identical with it, or that one cannot be great without thinking that they're great.

Ironically, you spend a lot of the comment talking about what shit-ass idiots the average normal person must be, while sensually massaging the geniuses.

Ironically, you spend a lot of the comment talking about what shit-ass idiots the average normal person must be, while sensually massaging the geniuses — Wosret

To be honest, I've only done that because your post suggested that great people are fucked up and the normal and average are better. That said, I think that great people can also have a very serious difficulty to face, just like normal and average people do. The difficulty for the normal and average is not to be jealous, not to be petty, etc. The difficulty for the great men is not to disconsider or treat as inferior or be overly harsh, demanding, uncaring and insensitive towards the normal and average. Not to treat them as expendable or less worthy. To be compassionate and caring towards them. That's difficult for the great men simply because of the hatred, fear and jealousy the average and normal exert towards the great.

So you're saying either that thinking oneself to be great is constitutive of greatness, or identical with it, or that one cannot be great without thinking that they're great — Wosret

SEEING yourself as great is constitutive of greatness and one cannot be great NOT without thinking they're great, but without SEEING they're great. There's a difference. You can think whatever you want, but when I say seeing, then I mean that you feel yourself as great on a level that is there prior to thinking. Greatness is simply integrated into your self-model.

To be compassionate and caring towards them. That's difficult for the great men simply because of the hatred, fear and jealousy the average and normal exert towards the great. — Agustino

Alarm bells ring, but don't ask for whom the bell tolls; (it tolls for thee).

One has to explain why people aren't appreciating, or reacting favorably or positively to our words gestures and actions. Or why there is tension between oneself and others. One way is to just accept the ques one is receiving, and live within them. The other is to explain them in a way that salvages, or leaves unscathed one's self-perception as great.

They're both ways of dealing with the same fundamental reality that the two kinds are similarly encountering.

No, an inability to reconcile individual goals with societal goals says something about what 'we' are capable of at this point, just because it might not be a simple either / or does not mean the starting point is completely baseless. — Gooseone

I am not arguing that the starting point is baseless, I am arguing that it is useless, or meaningless. It is a staring point, so it is a base. Let me explain again. Agustino starts with a definition of mental illness, and then says that mental strength is having no mental illness. So if the doctors, who are the specialists in the field, say that psychopathy is mental illness, then by Agustino's own definitions, it is impossible that any psychopathy could be a mental strength.

Yet Agustino still wants to say that some psychopathic behaviour could actually be a mental strength. Unless an alternative definition of mental strength is provided, there is no premise to argue this. That is why, in order to properly discuss this issue, we must start with a clear definition of what mental strength is. Then we can move to identify, and classify, different types of variations in relation to what mental strength is said to be. This allows that mental illness might be determined as a specific type of privation of mental strength. Not all waverings from the defined "mental strength" should constitute mental illness, that would be ridiculous. Agustino's position does not allow any variations to mental strength because mental strength is just a catch-all category of not mentally ill.

I don't see how this is possible. He may try to feign it, but since he lacks the first-person understanding of empathy, his feigning will only ever be very imperfect. — Agustino

I think you underestimate the capacity of the human being to deceive another. The lying con artist comes in all different forms, some are good, some are not so good. They can all look you right in the eye and lie to your face, with great ease. If it's a good liar, this doesn't mean that the liar was once honest, and knows how to present oneself as honest, it most likely means the opposite, that the liar is well practised, from childhood. Being an honest person, and knowing how to be honest, does not make one a good liar, by knowing how to appear honest. Like any acting, practise makes perfect.

But what makes the con artist a good con artist, most of all, is the nature of the con itself, and this is derived from the creativity of the artist. I don't see how you can consider this creativity as anything other than a mental strength. If the creative capacity of the psychopath is considered in this way, then how can it be anything other than a misdirected mental strength, despite the fact that the "misdirected" aspect makes it clearly a mental illness. If this is the case, then mental illness may not even be in the same category as mental strength. Mental illness would be within some motivating factors, not within the strength of the mind itself, which is built up by habits and exercises. That is where strength comes from, practise. The motivating factors of the psychopath would be producing the wrong habits and exercises (antisocial thinking), such that there is still strength of mind, but not in a reasonable way.

That is where strength comes from, practise. — Metaphysician Undercover

And steroids.

Chemicals to make the mind stronger are a real possibility, but I think you're playing with fire there.

I don't care. I need to be a genius so people won't make fun of me.

Well, as Agustino says above, you have to think that you're a genius before you can actually be one. But this is just inviting people to make fun of you.

But I'm saying that the way to gain it, is precisely and paradoxically not to be concerned with it. — Agustino

Then why are we discussing it rather than something else?



Well you have demonstrated that it doesn't take a great deal of imagination to construct a scenario wherein the crookedness of a person in power will likely lead to their demise. But this is a specially tailored case, purpose-designed to support your generalization; which it is not really fit to do.. Life consists of all kinds of cases, of which probably only a vanishing minority are alike to the one you have outlined.

I completely disagree with you about geniuses. There are far more mediocrities who think they possess genius that there are geniuses who think they possess genius. I think it is far more likely that your average genius is totally absorbed in their passion for their work, and probably gives little thought to their being a genius. Great artists, poets and musicians don't really know that they are great; that they are geniuses; this is established only by posterity. Greatness in the arts or in philosophy is far more problematic today, since when it comes to formal innovation it has all pretty much been done. The exception to this might be when it comes to scientific theories.

Well, as Agustino says above, you have to think that you're a genius before you can actually be one. But this is just inviting people to make fun of you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh isn't that funny? Where have I actually said that? In fact, I've said quite the contrary, but people still think they've read what they want to have read instead of what I actually wrote ;) :

SEEING yourself as great is constitutive of greatness and one cannot be great NOT without thinking they're great, but without SEEING they're great. There's a difference. You can think whatever you want, but when I say seeing, then I mean that you feel yourself as great on a level that is there prior to thinking. Greatness is simply integrated into your self-model. — Agustino

Alarm bells ring, but don't ask for whom the bell tolls; (it tolls for thee). — Bitter Crank

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Excellent piece of writing! It reminded me of it! Alas BC, the point I made seems to have been lost on Wosret - both normal and average and great have their own specific problems and challanges to face in relationship to life. This doesn't make one "better" morally speaking or "worse", they're just different. I respect normal and average people who are humble and don't resort to resentment and jealousy. I also respect great people who are compassionate and don't resort to arrogance and hardness of heart. I'm not being one-sided on this issue, as I am on the conservative-progressive debate for example. I freely admit I'm one-sided and biased there, always have.

One has to explain why people aren't appreciating, or reacting favorably or positively to our words gestures and actions. Or why there is tension between oneself and others. — Wosret

Good, so have you explained to yourself why I responded the way I did to you? Have you taken the ques as they are, or have you rationalised them to save your world-model?

I completely disagree with you about geniuses. There are far more mediocrities who think they possess genius that there are geniuses who think they possess genius. I think it is far more likely that your average genius is totally absorbed in their passion for their work, and probably gives little thought to their being a genius. Great artists, poets and musicians don't really know that they are great; — John

That's not my experience with such people. Generally I've found that such people are usually quite arrogant and cold - some of them, a few from those I've had the chance to meet, are actually nice people, who have compassion for those lesser than them. But not that many. Not that I put it to them - I understand why they are the way they are. It's not easy being great.

So it's not that they think they're great, so much so that they simply act that way, without even thinking about it. As I said, they've integrated it into their self-model. The challenge is always to integrate it in the self-model without sacrificing compassion for those who aren't as great. I've always admired greatness of any kind, but as I said, that's me. Most people I know are quite jealous of it, and resent greatness, unless they directly stand to gain something from it, in which case they praise it to no end.

This allows that mental illness might be determined as a specific type of privation of mental strength — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that doing so would appear useless but might have "some" merit, mainly by virtue of there being a consensus about the role of individual value judgements. 'I' would not, for instance, regard psychopathy as a mental strength yet seeing they appear to make great captains of industry, what do I know? I also wouldn't agree on mental illness being a lack of mental strength, but the hole Agustino seems to have dug himself into here might stem from a continuous shifting between societal value judgements, mere physical well-being and individual value judgements.

I've tried to make this point earlier: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/37905

It take it to be impossible to come to a clear definition of what constitutes mental strength but laying out a mechanism with which individual cases could be viewed might be a step along the way.

I agree that doing so would appear useless but might have "some" merit, mainly by virtue of there being a consensus about the role of individual value judgements. 'I' would not, for instance, regard psychopathy as a mental strength yet seeing they appear to make great captains of industry, what do I know? I also wouldn't agree on mental illness being a lack of mental strength, but the hole Agustino seems to have dug himself into here might stem from a continuous shifting between societal value judgements, mere physical well-being and individual value judgements. — Gooseone

I think that the point we are getting to here is the question concerning the nature of "value judgements". I would ask, is a so-called "value" judgement really a judgement at all? Consider, as I suggested in my last post, that motivating factors are separable from mental strength. Mental strength is related to judgement, as judgement comes from an exercising of mental capacity, the capacity to think. But value is what directs such thinking. Value is prior to thinking, judgement posterior. So value is the motivating factor, which produces thinking, practise, and mental strength, but what directs value itself? It cannot be that thinking and mental strength determine what is valuable, or else we have a circle, what is valuable directs thinking, and thinking determines what is valuable. Such a closed loop would deny the possibility that mental illness could enter in. Perhaps we must distinguish two types of mental illness, that which affects the values, or motivating factors, while the thinking process might remain strong. And, that which affects the thinking process itself, disallowing the strength which comes from practise, repetition and habituation.

csalisbury, a portion of your first reply on this thread has been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution.

Though psychology and emotion appear to be a bit too vague at times to discuss properly in philosophical discourse, I cannot help but observe their relevance towards most everything we undertake. Also, consciousness is not always deemed to actually exist or, if it does, gets more credence then is justified. I'd guess the somatic marker hypothesis from Antonio Damasio provides the most relevant "proof" for the following but thinking (conceptualizing) gets it's value due to an emotional response. I could go further and enter the realm of pure speculation (though it seems to apply to my own life) where I'd assert that, what we value has to do with development / purpose. Not insinuating there's necessarily a clearly defined pre-set goal to achieve, but rather that most people value (positively) developing in some way (Gaining material wealth, procreating, belonging to a group, being intellectually challenged, levelling up in Call of Duty, stubbornly persisting in finding "truth", etc.)

One of the exemplar cases used by Damasio is that of a male suffering brain trauma which does not seem to hamper his behaviour at first glance, yet a lack of emotional response towards his own conceptions (thoughts, projections of the future) made him make decisions which were detrimental to his well-being, a bit similar to Phineas Gage. Seeing there was little emotional inclination to respond to rational thought, the person from the modern example could follow the logic of where he made "wrong" choices, he was just unable to care much for doing so.

Even though this was a clear case of severe physiological trauma, the resulting mental illness was very hard to diagnose.

So this was a case where physiological trauma affected the ability to value but (for example!) a very intelligent mind in a very dumb environment could be affected by a lack of valuing, mainly because the common goals of the environment do not suffice and there is a lack of information in which value could be found. Such a circumstance could very well lead to mental illness without any physiological predisposition while, vica versa, certain autistic people or people with Asperger syndrome can gain valuable functionality if giving the right environmental outlet (like in the often mentioned examples of maths geniuses, etc). Here, a physiological "defect" isn't really a mental illness any more. Also, psychopathy could be summarized by a strong thinking process and strong value judgements (mainly extreme egotistical ones) yet a clear lack of value judgements 'shared' by the environment is what makes most of us see psychopathy as a mental illness.

Then we can look at, for example, down syndrome where people might be lacking somewhat in strong thinking processes yet are able to value things adequately and, with a little attention from the environment, can function prosperously.

Also (what I've tried to show by my own example), if a value judgement shifts (in my case from valuing my own personal mental development very high where a lack of development in this regard has made / is making me value my societal role more) there can suddenly be despair where there was "mental strength" before. (I'm hoping it won't lead to mental illness, but I can envision how it could). I have a hunch our value judgements are more important then our thinking processes seeing a sudden trauma which would hamper my thinking process could only be detrimental if I would be keenly aware of a sudden lack and how this lack hampers my ability to achieve my previously cherished values. Similarly, if someone is suffering from a psychotic episode due to "delusions", could these "delusions" possibly be articulated and "handled" if the thought process was strong enough and the information was provided with which it could be seen which value judgement is running haywire?

It's all quite complex... to me anyway. I do feel that "value" can be linked to progressive development (yet this can be realised in so many ways it's almost a futile handle), where a lack of progressive development combined with a keen awareness of such a lack can lead to great despair and, especially if this mechanism is not understood whatsoever, to mental illness.

Congratulations @csalisbury! (Y)

Yes the shame idea was indeed quite intriguing and good. However, you never took me up on it afterwards, but my inkling is that in some cases shame does and can lead to mental illness, but in others it may also be a stabilising force which prevents mental illness.

'I' would not, for instance, regard psychopathy as a mental strength yet seeing they appear to make great captains of industry, what do I know? — Gooseone

Just a cautionary note... Out and out psychopaths do not make great captains of industry. It's a suite of talents, one of which might be some psychopathic characteristics that makes them effective. A touch of megalomania helps some people too. More than a touch, and you have a an unbalanced personality (like some presidents-elect).

More than a touch, and you have a an unbalanced personality (like some presidents-elect). — Bitter Crank

Do you really think he has an unbalanced personality? >:O See, I would never identify someone like Trump as suffering of mental illness. I simply wouldn't think of that as psychopathic in any sense. So I find it entirely amazing that others folks find that to be mentally ill. Maybe you disagree with him - sure - but to say he's mentally ill seems very strange to me. Certainly doesn't look as what I imagine by mental illness.