Sociopath!

[raw_thought]

The whole "argument" that my saying that sociopaths have certain mental characteristics is similar to saying that blacks have certain mental characteristics is sloppy reasoning at best. Sociopathy is a mental state. Race is merely a superfluous biological characteristic, like hair color etc.

[raw_thought]

Would an extreme sociopath not care about himself? He is a human after all. Is that why sociopaths commit suicide?
I love the irony!

The way I see it, all you’ll ever understand about such a topic comes from what you know about the topic, and the definition of the words. Feel free to philosophically expound on this topic of your interest, and try to make it interesting to a philosophical audience who may, or may not, share this particular interest of yours. Remember, your audience consists of people quite likely more intelligent than you.

Or at least they try so, so hard to be, right?

There's no one stupider than one that professes their intellectual superiority, whether implied or blatantly stated, it makes no difference, as they're still obsessed with their own version of a Protection-fear racket!

I never professed my intellectual superiority. I merely refuted your "arguments". Considering that they were only name calling, I hesitate to callthem arguments.

[raw_thought]

The whole "argument" that my saying that sociopaths have certain mental characteristics is similar to saying that blacks have certain mental characteristics is sloppy reasoning at best. Sociopathy is a mental state. Race is merely a superfluous biological characteristic, like hair color etc.

Also, implying that I am a racist goes beyond sloppy reasoning and is actually a morally reprehensible style of argument.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Would an extreme sociopath not care about himself? He is a human after all. Is that why sociopaths commit suicide?
I love the irony!

I guess it would depend on the sociopath.

sociopath [soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-]
noun, Psychiatry.
1. a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

When I was a kid, someone asked me, "what if all the people in psychiatric institutions were actually the sane ones?" Upon observing the so called sane ones, I understood why they asked the question.

It is true that one of the first questions a psychologist asks a new potential patient is whether or not they feel they are a danger to themselves or anyone else. So I would imagine a sociopath could harm themselves.

[Skip]

Ok, what do you disagree with?)

If you mean me, it's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact. My agreement wouldn't make your statements any more valid.

1. There are degrees of mental illness.

Possibly. The statement is too general and vague to evaluate.
Which mental illness in particular? How are its degrees identified, described and quantified?

2. That the self is unknown because metaphorically speaking, an eye cannot see itself.

What has a metaphorical eye got to do with the aetiology, presentation, classification, diagnosis or course of mental illness?
Why should any person not be able to tell himself from others? And if he couldn't, why would he want to harm anyone?

I'll throw in a feebie:

The most severe case would be one that doesnt even care about himself. That is the inevitable end of the sociopathic path.

Since you misapplied the label in the first place and misunderstood the nature of mental illness altogether, and persisted in doing so, in spite of all explanations, you obviously also don't know what "the path" of any illness is, let alone the "inevitable" path - which doesn't exist at all.
A sociopath doesn't care about other people or social rules - that's all.

Simply, calling me names without any argument is childish.

I simply pointed out your lack of acquaintance with the subject matter. I didn't call you names -
- nor do I need to: you've done a good job of that.

[Skip]

button, button!

[Skip]

wrong button

[raw_thought]

First of all,you do not understand what "metaphysical "means. It is not about new age stuff. It is about a higher level of abstraction. For example a metaphysical question is,for example,why are the laws of physics the way they are.
The rest of your posts are just name calling. OK, Where did I say something you disagree with? What statement did I make that shows that I am unaquainted with established definitions?

[Skip]

What were the names?

[raw_thought]

Unaquainted is another word for ignorant. Show me where I said something ignorant.

[raw_thought]

Anyway, this thread is not about you or me. Stop being so trivial. I really do not care about my virtual reputation. Simply, address the issues. Not who is a poopy head and who is not.

[Hobbes' Choice]

????
I am not calling anyone inferior! I am saying that if ANYONE (white,black, etc) is a sociopath (one that has no feelings for human beings) has any feelings for himself (considering that the sociopath is himself a human being).
I honestly have no idea how you came up with such a weird interpretation of what I wrote.

Your thinking is at fault as you are led by the categories.
People do not conform to categories, categories are used to describe people.

Thus for any given sociopath, if the attribution is good, indicates for that person a tendency to be antisocial. This says nothing about an attitude to himself, but to others. Any given sociopath is as likely to be a narcissist as any other person. In fact his or her narcissism might be the reason s/he has been attributed the term sociopath - only cares for himself.

[Skip]

raw thought: Unaquainted is another word for ignorant.

Ignorant is not a name: the name of the ignorant person would be Ignoramus. The name of an unacquainted person could be anything, including uncooked cogitation or the captain. Everyone is ignorant about some things, issues and topics. I wouldn't venture a guess as to the extent of your ignorance; I referred only to the area surrounding psychiatry.

Show me where I said something ignorant.

Would an extreme sociopath not care about himself? He is a human after all. Is that why sociopaths commit suicide?
I love the irony!

The whole "argument" that my saying that sociopaths have certain mental characteristics is similar to saying that blacks have certain mental characteristics is sloppy reasoning at best. Sociopathy is a mental state. Race is merely a superfluous biological characteristic, like hair color etc.

I am saying that if ANYONE (white,black, etc) is a sociopath (one that has no feelings for human beings) has any feelings for himself (considering that the sociopath is himself a human being).

Of course theee are degrees of mental illness. For example, some are more neurotic then others. Similarly, there are degrees of sociopathy. The most severe case would be one that doesnt even care about himself. That is the inevitable end of the sociopathic path.

The question I pose is more philosophical then sociological. Since the self (an eye cannot see itself) is unknowable to the self,how is it distinguishable from other egos.

Other than those, I suppose it would just be equating indifference with homicide and/or suicide, thinking this is a philosophical question and using the expression "poopy head" outside of junior kindergarten.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Would an extreme sociopath not care about himself? He is a human after all. Is that why sociopaths commit suicide?
I love the irony!

The way I see it, all you’ll ever understand about such a topic comes from what you know about the topic, and the definition of the words. Feel free to philosophically expound on this topic of your interest, and try to make it interesting to a philosophical audience who may, or may not, share this particular interest of yours. Remember, your audience consists of people quite likely more intelligent than you.

Or at least they try so, so hard to be, right?

There's no one stupider than one that professes their intellectual superiority, whether implied or blatantly stated, it makes no difference, as they're still obsessed with their own version of a Protection-fear racket!

I never professed my intellectual superiority. I merely refuted your "arguments". Considering that they were only name calling, I hesitate to callthem arguments.

RT, what is wrong with you? Seriously! Do you in fact know how this forum and for that matter, it's original model, USENET, works? The person that another's dialog is in response to, is the one that it's attached to. Such that when I quote Walker, providing dialog, that seemingly is in response to his, it probably is. Unless it sounds like my dialog is all chummy, that we're friends. Then one can worry that we're being all tribal and immature, and ganging up on another. Walker and I are definitely not friends! And I only ever gang up on those that come to the PNF to cause havoc. Those that obviously are newbies attempting to take on the regulars here, those that create hate and discontent for it's sake alone. And there have been a few here and there.

For the most part though, I see people that, while they may be extremely different, have a real interest in philosophy. Not that it means I'll swallow their words hook, line and sinker! I'll argue till hell freezes over, if I truly believe mine is the superior view!

Don't feel like everything is about you. I don't have a problem with you as much as I do about your words, in some instances.

[raw_thought]

????
I am not calling anyone inferior! I am saying that if ANYONE (white,black, etc) is a sociopath (one that has no feelings for human beings) has any feelings for himself (considering that the sociopath is himself a human being).
I honestly have no idea how you came up with such a weird interpretation of what I wrote.

Your thinking is at fault as you are led by the categories.
People do not conform to categories, categories are used to describe people.

Thus for any given sociopath, if the attribution is good, indicates for that person a tendency to be antisocial. This says nothing about an attitude to himself, but to others. Any given sociopath is as likely to be a narcissist as any other person. In fact his or her narcissism might be the reason s/he has been attributed the term sociopath - only cares for himself.

Of course there are degrees of mental illness. For example, some are more neurotic then others. Similarly, there are degrees of sociopathy. The most severe case would be one that doesnt even care about himself. That is the inevitable end of the sociopathic path.
The question I pose is more philosophical then sociological. Since the self (an eye cannot see itself) is unknowable to the self,how is it distinguishable from other egos.