Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

Sorry to hear about your brother and I am aware of the grim predicament of people who experience the condition diagnosed as schizophrenia. When I spoke of people who 'breakthrough' and emerge as stronger I am speaking of a small minority, such as a few people who I know who have experienced a psychotic breakdown and learned so much, such as someone who I know wel who had a psychotic breakdown and was in an psychiatric intensive care unit and he is now a senior tutor in nursing. But, I have definitely seen the other side and how many suffer so much, through the experience of psychosis and the medication given to treat it.

A few months ago I remember discussion with you about the cardio-metabolic syndrome and there does appear to be a clear link between antipsychotic medication and this. While most of the older antipsychotics had the, extrapyramidal, movement problems, some of the newer ones like Olanzapine and Clozapine lead to tremendous weight gain which seems to trigger so many other potential physical problems, including type 2 diabetes. Many people don't wish to take their medication because they are aware of side-effects, especially the weight gain.

My own interest in the problem of suffering was originally based on knowing a number of people with serious mental health problems, including people who committed suicide. I felt that losing 3 friends to suicide in a short space of about 3-4 years to be my own personal experience of suffering. One of these 3 had missed his antipsychotic medication and was smoking cannabis. So, the problem of medication or not having it are complex.

I definitely don't wish to romanticize suffering, and in a way, some of the existentialist outsiders, like Camus, Nietzsche and Sartre may contribute towards this. I read Colin Wilson's ' The Outsider' and found it so significant but there is a danger of misery and suffering being glamourised, especially by angry young men. The reality of those who are going through the depths of mental pain is far from romantic.

I guess my own wish to see the positive in suffering is partly based on reading, such as the ideas of Victor Frankl. Having been in a Nazi concentration camp he speaks of how people could find meaning amidst suffering. However, it may be extremely difficult to live with physical, emotional or mental suffering.

Finally, I did notice that you mentioned schizophrenia being seen as a chemical disorder. That has been the view of some, who try to reduce it to genetics and neuroscience. But, that is open to question. In some cases, people who experience schizophrenia link it to early life experiences. In addition, it can encompass so many of the existential aspects of life, including issues to do with sexual expression and ideas about religion, and even ideas about good and evil.

Yes my brother died of heart and breathing problems, he gained weight too. Clozapine wrecked his body.
Mental illness is a very wide field. WHen I said "chemical imbalance" was reductive I mean to pour scorn on the pretense that they have found "the cause". When in fact they have just described another aspect of the illness. You have to ask how else would it appear in the brain? What you do not have is the conundrum; did the imbalance lead to the illness or does the illness lead to the imbalance?
THe vast majority of mental illness is caused by the stresses of the lived experience such as unresolved traumas, and losses. They may well appear as a chemical imbalance, and drug companies are only too eager to supply a pill which can mask that imbalance. But what is most effective is the sort of expensive and time consuming treatments that include unpacking those trauma through talking, CBT and group therapies. Most mental illnesses are not because of valium, propranolol or other deficiencies. Though those drugs can help the symptoms they cannot be a real solution.
However schizophrenia is not "most" mental illness. I'll not say drugs cannot help but they are far from a solution, and the other therapies might introduce coping mechanisms but schizophrenia is too profound and little understood a problem for it to be solvable.

What triggered it could have been things that happened to us as boys, god knows we had some rough times, and Mitch being the older may well have taken more on board.
Though this would not answer other cases. There is something which may be significant. Mitch was born with a large birthmark over his eye. Back on the late 1950s they did not have so much appreciation of the dangers of radiation. Mitch had his face irradiated over period of time to kill the birthmark. The treatment was successful, but I have always wondered what harm that may have done to a growing young brain.

I am extremely familiar with the use and potential problems of Clozapine. The friend who I spoke of who carries a Bible around with her was almost put on Clozapine. Despite psychotic experiences of thinking that she was the devil she was aware of the dangers of Clozapine. I am aware of how some individuals claim that Clozapine has made such a profound difference to life. I also remember watching a video made by a drug company promoting it as a 'wonder drug'. It is often used as an intervention for those who fail to get a response to the typical antipsychotics, but it can also only be given to people who are willing to comply with the blood test monitoring. When I was last working in psychiatric care one aspect which had become a focus, was the significance of constipation in connection with the heart. Part of the problem may be that research is limited, which is particularly important when people are expected to take a form of medication on a long term basis.

The whole area of trying to find a cause for schizophrenia is especially complicated. There was the dopamine hypothesis as an aspect of neuro chemistry. The physical aspects may involve so many factors. I do read in the field of alternative and holistic medicine and have read of various speculations ranging from chemical and food allergies to suggestions about inflammatory processes in the brain. It may be that a lot more research is needed. It is indeed questionable what radiation which your brother, Mitch, received could have done to a developing brain.

The bio- psychosocial model may be important, especially in relation to the role of trauma and early life experiences. The difficulties may impact upon emotional and chemical pathways of the brain. It is also interesting to consider in what ways problems can be resolved at a later stage. Medication is probably important but limited. Forms of therapy and CBT are definitely important, especially in thinking about the chemical wiring of the brain in relation to cognitions.

However, I don't wish to go off topic in my own thread, and I do read a lot in the area of critical psychiatry and may even write a thread on such an area at some point. However, it is a fairly sensitive area for online discussion, but relating back to the thread topic, the whole area of 'mental illness' and its treatment points to the way in which suffering is a complex area, and how simplistic explanations, especially in relation to the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' as black and white oppositions are inadequate in thinking about the nature of human experiences critically.

My brother resisted Clozapine for a long while; "they aint sticking no needle in me". But his previous regime was not working. Despite the problems it did give him a life, and was a vast improvement to his 3 drug cocktail based on chlorpromazine, procyclidine and another, which he'd been on for 15 years.
Maybe had he received timely counselling when it struck things would have been different.

Here's where evil comes in..
In times gone by my brother would have been considered as evil being possessed of evil spirits. In non Christian cultures he might have enjoyed the life of a seer and hermit. People who go to him as he was touched by the spirits.
Were his mental illness have led him to "evil" deeds, would he be blameless, or would he have had to accept the consequences of his actions? Luckily he was perfectly law abiding and gentle, but in so many cases mental health sufferers often go off the rails. Where then is evil?

Today's evil is people who, protecting their narrowly focused interest in either the talking therapy or neurochemistry or pharmacology or correctional facilities, claim that their methods are going to solve the problem.

Even when I was working in mental health care a couple of years ago I saw people being given a complete cocktail of medication. I also saw and had to give antipsychotic injections against people held down on the floor, taking it against their will under Mental Health Sections.

The ideas about psychiatry do vary with some people seeing it as 'evil spirits'. In particular, I knew some patients, mainly from African backgrounds, who had families who viewed it that way. It is true that in some cultures people who experienced hallucinations were revered as shamans, holy men and seers. If William Blake and Van Gogh had been alive in the twentieth first century they would have probably been Sectioned, been compelled to take psychiatric medication and probably would have never produced their most creative works.

As far as the acts committed by patients it is fortunate that your brother was law-abiding and gentle. So many people with mental illness are and the stereotypes in the media are unhelpful. With those who act and commit crimes, including severe aggression, murder and sexual crimes, it gets into the complex area of forensic psychiatry. I have some experience in forensic services but not in settings like Broadmoor, but I do know people who have worked there. There is the issue of people who are psychotic and commit crimes in response to voices but there is also the situation of those who have a diagnosis of borderline antisocial personality disorder. With people who have such a diagnosis there is a clear question of whether they are 'mad' or 'bad'. I have some experience of people with that diagnosis but not those who needed secure settings. For many in secure forensic settings it is about constant monitoring for risk to others and I understand that it can be challenging working with some of them, although they are offered therapy as well as medication.

[JackDaydream]

As far as being at peace with ourselves, there can sometimes be the extremes of guilt and 'beating oneself up'. Some may find shortcuts, especially in the projection of evil onto others, as scapegoats. Figures such as Hitler and Saddam Hussein, may be identified as the 'evil' ones. This may be an attempt to rid oneself of evil.

Yes, this chimes with the child-killer thing. When children kill other children, or adults kill children, we say they are "monsters", possibly/probably damaged at or before birth, etc., etc. That way, we don't have to admit that we, our children, or 'normal' people 'like us', could ever do such a thing. It's a way, in this case, of shrugging off any responsibility or contribution *we* might have made to what happened.

My take on this is that there are no 'monsters'. There are just human beings, who can get up to wonderful things, but also really terrible things too. If we are proud of the former, we must at least admit some 'ownership' of the latter, I think.

I view labelling people as 'monsters' as extremely unhelpful, especially children. It is such black and white thinking. As I said in the reply post which I wrote to Sculptor1 in the post previous to this, one of the areas where it gets most critical is with some people who commit crimes such as murder and rape, especially with those who are in forensic psychiatry settings, often diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. Often, the behaviour and thinking of such people does raise the question as to whether they are 'mad' or 'bad'.

However, judgmental attitudes are not particularly helpful. I have come across mental health care professionals who find it hard to work with those diagnosed with drug and alcohol addiction because they find it hard not to be judgments. One aspect of psychology and psychotherapy which I found to be of most value was the area of projection. So many people project onto others and it can take a lot of conscious work to withdraw projections. Aside from the focus of this within psychology it also goes back to the Biblical principle of people seeing the speck in someone else's eye while avoiding the plank in one's own eye.

[JackDaydream]

So, on that basis I would probably interpret the Hindu idea of evil as being an illusion to mean that it is not an objective aspect of life outside of human consciousness but bound up with inner reality and meaning.

That seems reasonable. As a "shade tree philosopher," I have observed that ancient wisdom like the Hermetica and Upanishad, not so ancient wisdom like the Bible and contemporary teachers tend to translate understanding of the past based on a cultural filter. At the same time, many of the different translations circle basic truths .. sometimes even converging on them.

This cultural contamination of metaphysical concepts seems to mimic how an individual person develops perception based on what the person has been taught is true. That goes back to the idea that evil is in the eye of the beholder. It is that idea of cultural contamination that has taken me to emphasis the need to examine the implications of what we think is true.

If we think of our cultural worldview as a chaotic system, that system's attractor is the actual. As a seeker, I suspect this physical venue for learning would be broken if we, as a community, completely embraced the actual.

But it seems necessary to give people a way out. Some people's temperament leads them to join the herd. However, some people will destroy the herd if it is necessary to get closer to the actual. Having a trusted teacher like the Upanishad and the Vedas to provide guidance toward realizing the actual can be a gift to society by way of enlightenment of those more inquisitive seekers. If we cannot perceive that which we do not understand, it is our contemporary philosophical rebels who are best equipped to turn our cultural worldview closer to the actual.

In my view, society would benefit by promoting forums like this with a mind toward encouraging a more contemporary take on the actual. But to be sure, the last thing we need as a society is another holy teacher.

I had not read your post about evil being in the eye of the beholder when I wrote a reply to Pattern-chaser referring to the Biblical passage about avoiding seeing the plank in one's own eye while seeing the speck in one's own. It does come down to perception and labelling and I also remember in sociology coming across Becker's idea that deviance exists in the eye of the beholder'. The way people label deviance and 'normality' are variable culturally and each person has their own individual perspective and blindspots.

The herd can get in the way and some destroy the herd or follow the herd to destroy that which is viewed as 'bad'. Hitler and the Nazi movement were aiming to eliminate those who were seen as less 'pure' and 'inferior'. Many wars are about destroying the perceived evil enemy. While the need to destroy Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden and the 'war on terrror' were connected to the dangers there was also a rhetoric of stamping out 'evil' equal to the Holy Wars.

It does seem likely people don't need a 'holy teacher'. Philosophy and critical discussion may be more helpful in the twentieth first century. The nature of a forum such as this does offer a potential platform. The only reservation which I have about this and other media sites is that at times they seem to involve fierce battles and cultural wars, with many following the herd mentality and prejudices. A common example is when threads become dumping grounds for the backlash against transgender people. Media sites can be like an open agenda for any views whatsoever, but, nevertheless, it may be that forums, especially in philosophy, do have potential for worthwhile critical discussion and debate about contentious contemporary issues, especially if there is a scope for a diverse variety of views and opinions.

[Tom Butler]

The only reservation which I have about this and other media sites is that at times they seem to involve fierce battles and cultural wars, with many following the herd mentality and prejudices.

After being an editor for a few years, Wikipedia comes to mind. I have likened the editor side of the online encyclopedia to "The Lord of the Flies."

One of my teachers argued that it is not for us to proselytize, but it is for us to reveal. Social media can reinforce perception of ... let me call them "false realities." However, they also expose minds to ideas that might germinate into lucidity.

There is another factor involved. I have talked before about temperament. Consider the simple version from Merrill and Reid:



In the context of this discussion, I compare a Driver to a Leader and an Expressive to a Conformist. On a scale of discerning intellect where one extreme is entirely instinct driven and the other is relatively greater lucidity, Conformists and Leaders tend to be more instinct driven.

These differences in temperament can be managed with a student's desire to self-educate. The problem is that perception is embodied by worldview. Worldview has considerable momentum because we cannot easily imagine that which we do not comprehend.

The world according to Tom.

[Sy Borg]

We are all are very, very long way from the maturity I'm taking about. Maturity starts when we humans no longer need to kill, displace or exploit other life forms - and each other - to survive and thrive. I think that a whole new chapter will start then, with minds being freed from physical concerns.

I'm happy to report that I have reached a stage where I "no longer need to kill, displace or exploit other life forms to survive and thrive", excepting only that I'm not a vegan. But you're right, I (and 'we') have a long way to go. They say it's the journey that matters, though, not the destination, don't they? 🤔🤔🤔

It's both the journeys and the destinations along the way. It's like games, where you need to reach a higher level to progress. Human mastery (well, sometimes) of fire could be thought of as reaching a new level. Without that, technology remains primitive. Agriculture. The industrial revolution. The intrernet.

Eventually, if catastrophe does not strike, there may be a new level again, one without the problems of biology, or at least far fewer.

[JackDaydream]

The only reservation which I have about this and other media sites is that at times they seem to involve fierce battles and cultural wars, with many following the herd mentality and prejudices.

After being an editor for a few years, Wikipedia comes to mind. I have likened the editor side of the online encyclopedia to "The Lord of the Flies."

One of my teachers argued that it is not for us to proselytize, but it is for us to reveal. Social media can reinforce perception of ... let me call them "false realities." However, they also expose minds to ideas that might germinate into lucidity.

There is another factor involved. I have talked before about temperament. Consider the simple version from Merrill and Reid:



In the context of this discussion, I compare a Driver to a Leader and an Expressive to a Conformist. On a scale of discerning intellect where one extreme is entirely instinct driven and the other is relatively greater lucidity, Conformists and Leaders tend to be more instinct driven.

These differences in temperament can be managed with a student's desire to self-educate. The problem is that perception is embodied by worldview. Worldview has considerable momentum because we cannot easily imagine that which we do not comprehend.

The world according to Tom.

I agree with you about the way in which the media can lead to false realities. That may be because seeing them written down may give them authority. In another thread, I was just engaging in a discussion about simulation theory in relation to 'toy worlds', which is relevant here. That is because people may blur the imaginary through seeing it in a concrete way. I do not subscribe to realism in the way which many do but it does come down to the nature of perception. Baudrillard's idea of the simuluricum may be relevant here because is about models and when they are mistaken for reality.

With ideas and perspectives they may be taken in such a way as to mistake them for more than they are as models, theories or even metaphors for framing reality. The point you make about differences in temperaments is important here because part of the issue about perception as a starting point is about examining the lens of perception.

This is partly psychological and it also may involve awareness of the way thinking has been informed by specific worldviews. For example, it may involve awareness of whether one was raised in a religious or non religious background, especially as a basis for thinking about the way in which the foundations of one's own approach. With the information age, there is a tendency to look to ideas as an 'out there reality' which may miss the interactive engagement with the ideas, especially in relation to self awareness and the autobiographical development of one's understanding of philosophy, forgetting that some of it comes down to the worldview of Tom or Jack.

[Tom Butler]

I agree with you about the way in which the media can lead to false realities. That may be because seeing them written down may give them authority. In another thread, I was just engaging in a discussion about simulation theory in relation to 'toy worlds', which is relevant here. That is because people may blur the imaginary through seeing it in a concrete way. I do not subscribe to realism in the way which many do but it does come down to the nature of perception. Baudrillard's idea of the simuluricum may be relevant here because is about models and when they are mistaken for reality.

With ideas and perspectives they may be taken in such a way as to mistake them for more than they are as models, theories or even metaphors for framing reality. The point you make about differences in temperaments is important here because part of the issue about perception as a starting point is about examining the lens of perception.

This is partly psychological and it also may involve awareness of the way thinking has been informed by specific worldviews. For example, it may involve awareness of whether one was raised in a religious or non religious background, especially as a basis for thinking about the way in which the foundations of one's own approach. With the information age, there is a tendency to look to ideas as an 'out there reality' which may miss the interactive engagement with the ideas, especially in relation to self awareness and the autobiographical development of one's understanding of philosophy, forgetting that some of it comes down to the worldview of Tom or Jack.

Part of my training in engineering was the development and use of models ... usually in the form of black-box analysis for reverse engineering. (Of course, there was a lot about the idea of using a fraction scale physical model and then extrapolating the difference between it and true size.)

Part of that training included a deep dive in mathematical modeling. For instance, how differential analysis (dx/dy) compares to integration models. In the end, the instructor pointed out that drawing the curve on a homogenous surface, cutting it out and weighing the results is an effective way to test the approximations. After all was said and done, I decided that mathematicians actually lived in a world in which their reality was limited by the assumptions they used in developing their mathematical models. It is hard to cut out an weigh a gravity wave.

The good news is that most engineering and math models can be tested and refined. Newton's falling apple model uses the acceleration of gravity. Gravity tends to be a little different from place to place, so an engineers calculation of falling objects usually includes +/- error calculations. Application of a model of a system ... say an ant walking out on a spinning record ... is expected to include an accumulated error calculation.

As a lay observer, it seems clear to me that most of the sciences based on models and assumptions derived from observations and prior models. The problem is that scientists seldom bother to explain the initial assumption or the error calculation ... if any. Science writers tend to emphasize the dazzle factor at the expense of the much more boring background work product.

In agreement with Baudrillard's idea of the simuluricum, I think that models are the coin of science. One of my problems with parapsychology is that it tends to be all dazzle, probably because few of the supposed scientists have the training in how the models are developed. It is common to have a Ph.D. pronounce nonsense under cover of academia and behind an academic-Layperson Partition. Think of that as the Wizard Syndrome.

At the same time, it is expected by academics that their pronouncements will be taken as truth by laypeople. Most of the time, laypeople do. Think of that as the Wizard of Oz Syndrome.

Using the paranormalist community as an example (model), I think the majority of people do mistake models for reality as you suspect. However, remember that chaotic system attractor I described above. Society tends to turn toward the actual (attractor) so as to orbit closer to it. Over the years, probably because of better information access via the Internet, I have watched the the average person grow in perceptual maturity ... at least some and a little. What remains in my mind is the need for further education in how to think.

The emphasis of my senior years has been to hold a light up for seekers. However, that is a rather dubious purpose. My real hope is that some of my writing will reach a few who are inclined to be teachers.

[JackDaydream]

I agree with you about the way in which the media can lead to false realities. That may be because seeing them written down may give them authority. In another thread, I was just engaging in a discussion about simulation theory in relation to 'toy worlds', which is relevant here. That is because people may blur the imaginary through seeing it in a concrete way. I do not subscribe to realism in the way which many do but it does come down to the nature of perception. Baudrillard's idea of the simuluricum may be relevant here because is about models and when they are mistaken for reality.

With ideas and perspectives they may be taken in such a way as to mistake them for more than they are as models, theories or even metaphors for framing reality. The point you make about differences in temperaments is important here because part of the issue about perception as a starting point is about examining the lens of perception.

This is partly psychological and it also may involve awareness of the way thinking has been informed by specific worldviews. For example, it may involve awareness of whether one was raised in a religious or non religious background, especially as a basis for thinking about the way in which the foundations of one's own approach. With the information age, there is a tendency to look to ideas as an 'out there reality' which may miss the interactive engagement with the ideas, especially in relation to self awareness and the autobiographical development of one's understanding of philosophy, forgetting that some of it comes down to the worldview of Tom or Jack.

Part of my training in engineering was the development and use of models ... usually in the form of black-box analysis for reverse engineering. (Of course, there was a lot about the idea of using a fraction scale physical model and then extrapolating the difference between it and true size.)

Part of that training included a deep dive in mathematical modeling. For instance, how differential analysis (dx/dy) compares to integration models. In the end, the instructor pointed out that drawing the curve on a homogenous surface, cutting it out and weighing the results is an effective way to test the approximations. After all was said and done, I decided that mathematicians actually lived in a world in which their reality was limited by the assumptions they used in developing their mathematical models. It is hard to cut out an weigh a gravity wave.

The good news is that most engineering and math models can be tested and refined. Newton's falling apple model uses the acceleration of gravity. Gravity tends to be a little different from place to place, so an engineers calculation of falling objects usually includes +/- error calculations. Application of a model of a system ... say an ant walking out on a spinning record ... is expected to include an accumulated error calculation.

As a lay observer, it seems clear to me that most of the sciences based on models and assumptions derived from observations and prior models. The problem is that scientists seldom bother to explain the initial assumption or the error calculation ... if any. Science writers tend to emphasize the dazzle factor at the expense of the much more boring background work product.

In agreement with Baudrillard's idea of the simuluricum, I think that models are the coin of science. One of my problems with parapsychology is that it tends to be all dazzle, probably because few of the supposed scientists have the training in how the models are developed. It is common to have a Ph.D. pronounce nonsense under cover of academia and behind an academic-Layperson Partition. Think of that as the Wizard Syndrome.

At the same time, it is expected by academics that their pronouncements will be taken as truth by laypeople. Most of the time, laypeople do. Think of that as the Wizard of Oz Syndrome.

Using the paranormalist community as an example (model), I think the majority of people do mistake models for reality as you suspect. However, remember that chaotic system attractor I described above. Society tends to turn toward the actual (attractor) so as to orbit closer to it. Over the years, probably because of better information access via the Internet, I have watched the the average person grow in perceptual maturity ... at least some and a little. What remains in my mind is the need for further education in how to think.

The emphasis of my senior years has been to hold a light up for seekers. However, that is a rather dubious purpose. My real hope is that some of my writing will reach a few who are inclined to be teachers.

I am sure that your background in engineering is extremely useful. My own thinking about models and their limitations was partly based on the writings of Popper, but also based on the interplay of the angles of science and the arts. In particular, it could be asked, to what extent is the idea of the existence of God a question of science or the arts? Some aspects of the philosophy of religion may involve questions based around the sciences but this is based on an empirical approach to 'reality' as opposed to the inner experiences which may fall into the categories of introspective psychology or 'spirituality'.

One book which I have been reading in connection with this thread is CS Lewis's, 'The Problem of Pain', which goes back to the central dilemma in Christianity about why does a God of 'love' allow pain and suffering to exist in the world? Here, often ideas are based upon the idea of the fall of man, which was sometimes taken as a concrete model of the human condition.

However, CS Lewis does go beyond this to looking at the idea of the numinous. He argues,
'We do not know how far back in human history this feeling goes. The earliest men almost certainly believed in things which would excite the feeling in us if we believed in them, and it seems that numinous awe is as old as humanity itself'.

This brings life back to mystery itself and the whole area of the paranormal raises questions about everyday explanations of the uncanny and the nature of interpretations. I am a follower of Jung's idea of synchronicity, as I seem to live in a world of unfolding meaningful 'coincidences', although I am aware that is my own interpretative framework. There are so many models, some which appeal and 'dazzle' more especially in the spectrum of physicalism and materialism, which do have some parallels between the spectrum of atheism and theism.

Part of the problem of trying to come up with ultimate 'truths' about reality, as well as good and evil, is that it is all constructed to make a workable model of 'reality', as a way of developing meaning. It is part logical, based on rational forms of explanation and part mythical. Human beings develop images and stories to make sense of one's own experiences in the contexts of perception of suffering as well as happiness. Ideas of good and evil are constructed subjectively and intersubjectively in the autobiographical and cultural aspects of human understanding.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am sure that your background in engineering is extremely useful. My own thinking about models and their limitations was partly based on the writings of Popper, but also based on the interplay of the angles of science and the arts.

Models and modelling are fundamental to human thought, I believe. Scientists and engineers use them in their work, but so do many other people and professions. If you deliver food for McDonalds, modelling may not play a huge part. But even then, we all carry a continuously-updated model of the world in our heads, that we use for, er, navigating that world. Modelling is a huge part of our thinking. I think this includes philosophy too.

[JackDaydream]

I am sure that your background in engineering is extremely useful. My own thinking about models and their limitations was partly based on the writings of Popper, but also based on the interplay of the angles of science and the arts.

Models and modelling are fundamental to human thought, I believe. Scientists and engineers use them in their work, but so do many other people and professions. If you deliver food for McDonalds, modelling may not play a huge part. But even then, we all carry a continuously-updated model of the world in our heads, that we use for, er, navigating that world. Modelling is a huge part of our thinking. I think this includes philosophy too.

[JackDaydream]

I am sure that your background in engineering is extremely useful. My own thinking about models and their limitations was partly based on the writings of Popper, but also based on the interplay of the angles of science and the arts.

Models and modelling are fundamental to human thought, I believe. Scientists and engineers use them in their work, but so do many other people and professions. If you deliver food for McDonalds, modelling may not play a huge part. But even then, we all carry a continuously-updated model of the world in our heads, that we use for, er, navigating that world. Modelling is a huge part of our thinking. I think this includes philosophy too.

It is true that we carry models around in our head because they are like maps. What I do find important is trying to put them together in some synthetic way, although there may be dangers of blending in such a way that the details or differences get glossed over.

With regard to suffering, I try to juxtapose the psychodynamic models with those from the cognitive behavioral approach. That is not to ignore subtle differences, such as the way in which the psychodynamic looks to the past whereas CBT focuses on the present as well as cognitions more.

The problem of good and evil itself arises in the philosophy of religion and my own approach is to try to see comparisons and differences, such as between Christianity and Buddhism. Also, comparisons between the secular and religious ones are important. While philosophy is a historical discipline in its own right it may also the master one for framing different theories and models, although that is not an easy task at all.