Re: Psychology foundation
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 9:29 pm
LOL? ..now you are just being pathetic!Philosophy Explorer wrote:What you missed is that there are others who may miss what the internet offers about the Milgram experiment.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
LOL? ..now you are just being pathetic!Philosophy Explorer wrote:What you missed is that there are others who may miss what the internet offers about the Milgram experiment.
I too enjoyed this bit, as I've noticed, for quite some time now, (an argument with Chaz Wyman back in 2011), how many arguments actually undermine themselves. Many people don't realize this, it would surely seem, as they stand on, what they believe is solid ground, only to site that which also serves to disprove itself.Gee wrote:It is true that science can not with any accuracy state where the mind is located, what it is made up of, or even prove that it exists, so of course, they would consider study of the mind as a soft science. What amazes me is that science does not seem to have any problem with using this 'soft science mind' to create and test their 'hard science'. That always gives me a chuckle.
Both should be studied; it doesn't matter what specialized field you're in, as they both supplant one another with their ideas.Philosophy Explorer wrote:Should one be well versed in psychology before doing philosophical counseling? Also what forms of philosophy would be most suitable for counseling purposes?
PhilX
Talk about being pathetic. I can't throw pity towards one who has no regard for its fellow members, placing himself on a pedestal from which to rain down its insults on its fellow members. It even tries to communicate with its fellow members using poor grammar and misspelled words, when it only accomplishes the opposite purpose. I would say, at the very least, it should try to get itself a FREE spellchecker to raise itself up a step on its pedestal so at least others can understand what it's saying (being from another country such as Denmark is no excuse and it can still do much better).HexHammer wrote:LOL? ..now you are just being pathetic!Philosophy Explorer wrote:What you missed is that there are others who may miss what the internet offers about the Milgram experiment.
Look in the mirror when you say that (I don't know of any other forums that would tolerate what pours out of your mouth and trying to tell me what to do won't work here).HexHammer wrote:Dear retard, just shut up then I won't say anything negative that makes you whine, or go elsewhere! There are plenty of forums that allows retards like you to pour out prolific nonsense and babble.
Are you saying there isn't any field of study that wouldn't relate here?WanderingLands wrote:Both should be studied; it doesn't matter what specialized field you're in, as they both supplant one another with their ideas.Philosophy Explorer wrote:Should one be well versed in psychology before doing philosophical counseling? Also what forms of philosophy would be most suitable for counseling purposes?
PhilX
He said as he finally caught a glimpse of his true reflection in the mirror, though he shall never shut up; diarrhea, just works that way.HexHammer wrote:Dear retard, just shut up then I won't say anything negative that makes you whine, or go elsewhere! There are plenty of forums that allows retards like you to pour out prolific nonsense and babble.
That's what HH said.HexHammer wrote:Dear retard, just shut up then I won't say anything negative that makes you whine, or go elsewhere! There are plenty of forums that allows retards like you to pour out prolific nonsense and babble.
Lies and manipulation, the only thing you can do mr Retard, you just love to derail your own threads with all your irrelevant nonsense as usual!Philosophy Explorer wrote:That's what HH said.HexHammer wrote:Dear retard, just shut up then I won't say anything negative that makes you whine, or go elsewhere! There are plenty of forums that allows retards like you to pour out prolific nonsense and babble.
This shows he's lying:
"Philosophy Explorer wrote:
I found a Wiki link on the Milgram experiment (I had pointed out the importance of spelling before. Even if the spellchecker does point out that the additional L is wrong, one would strengthen his position by using the right spelling).
Here's the link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experimentOh still being the complete retard, you found it regardless of bad spelling, only showing that you don't comprehend the nature of relevance.
Even if you read the whole of Milgram Experiment on wiki you will not grasp the nature of it, as the wiki article is very incomplete and retards like yourself won't comprehends such deep things."
And I don't shut up for anybody including those who have diarrhea of the mouth.
Even when you try your hardest you always fail, you can't help insulting left and right.Philosophy Explorer wrote:I found a Wiki link on the Milgram experiment (I had pointed out the importance of spelling before. Even if the spellchecker does point out that the additional L is wrong, one would strengthen his position by using the right spelling).
Here's the link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Well the master of the insult let some more diarrhea out of his mouth.HexHammer wrote:Lies and manipulation, the only thing you can do mr Retard, you just love to derail your own threads with all your irrelevant nonsense as usual!Philosophy Explorer wrote:That's what HH said.HexHammer wrote:Dear retard, just shut up then I won't say anything negative that makes you whine, or go elsewhere! There are plenty of forums that allows retards like you to pour out prolific nonsense and babble.
This shows he's lying:
"Philosophy Explorer wrote:
I found a Wiki link on the Milgram experiment (I had pointed out the importance of spelling before. Even if the spellchecker does point out that the additional L is wrong, one would strengthen his position by using the right spelling).
Here's the link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experimentOh still being the complete retard, you found it regardless of bad spelling, only showing that you don't comprehend the nature of relevance.
Even if you read the whole of Milgram Experiment on wiki you will not grasp the nature of it, as the wiki article is very incomplete and retards like yourself won't comprehends such deep things."
And I don't shut up for anybody including those who have diarrhea of the mouth.Even when you try your hardest you always fail, you can't help insulting left and right.Philosophy Explorer wrote:I found a Wiki link on the Milgram experiment (I had pointed out the importance of spelling before. Even if the spellchecker does point out that the additional L is wrong, one would strengthen his position by using the right spelling).
Here's the link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Spheres;SpheresOfBalance wrote:I too enjoyed this bit, as I've noticed, for quite some time now, (an argument with Chaz Wyman back in 2011), how many arguments actually undermine themselves. Many people don't realize this, it would surely seem, as they stand on, what they believe is solid ground, only to site that which also serves to disprove itself.Gee wrote:It is true that science can not with any accuracy state where the mind is located, what it is made up of, or even prove that it exists, so of course, they would consider study of the mind as a soft science. What amazes me is that science does not seem to have any problem with using this 'soft science mind' to create and test their 'hard science'. That always gives me a chuckle.
A mind that can't decide what a mind is, yet it can decide that it can't, and that all other things are indeed what it decides!
Poetic, no?
I can see a lot of value in it. The fact that they are so interested in Socratic ideas is the best part of this concept. What I can not see is the practical realities of distributing this idea -- the venue.Skip wrote:Ah! I didn't know about that. I can see some point to it. In an era of so many contradictions and sources of propaganda, having a single coherent world-view whereby one could set a standard of judgment and a basis for decisions, might be useful. (See how happy the Libertarians are!) Even more useful would be to lead confused people to some central principles they themselves believe; that would bolster their self-awareness and identity.Gee - Some of the philosophical counselors use the Socratic Method to help people find truth, and it is true that the Socratic Method is very much like Freud's analysis. But again, a person can lead you to a place where you need to go with their questions, or they can lead you to a place where they want you to go. Some of the people also thought that the Socratic ideas of virtue and integrity were of value, but again, this could lead to something close to a religious ethic.
I don't know much about it, as I said, I had never heard of philosophical counseling before reading this thread. But I did hear some gossip about universities cutting philosophy altogether, so it does not look good. Getting a degree in philosophy does not necessarily translate to finding work in philosophy.Philosophy Explorer wrote: Addressing you [Gee] specifically, and others as well. Are there any major colleges and universities that offer courses on philosophical counseling? Do you think it would be helpful to set standards to avoid corruption? Or do you think we risk limiting our freedom to explore and investigate by setting such standards? Do you have any ideas what the standards should be?
Agreed. Most of the really good philosophers that we have now, who can reach the general public, are comedians. Comedians show us what is real and make us laugh at ourselves, so they reach a wide range of people without ever letting us know that they are philosophers, who are teaching us about ourselves and reality.Skip wrote: I can't imagine an authority competent to make those limiting decisions and set those conditions without prejudice. I say, leave it alone to evolve if it's viable, die if it's not. There is little enough creative exploration going in these days!
I see the problem. The people who could benefit most - students; minds still forming; youth without too many axes as yet to grind - wouldn't have access. World leaders and business magnates might make a show of attending seminars, but do it without any intention of changing their views. About the only thing they might gain is improved spin - a more impressive language in which to frame their same old agenda.Gee -
So what kind of venue would allow these people to distribute their knowledge and also keep them from starving?
I was in fact aiming my commentary at HH, though I sometimes come off otherwise. In other words, sometimes it's hard to tell if I'm being rhetorical, metaphorical, sarcastic, using reverse psychology, being straight, playing devils advocate, etc, etc, etc.Philosophy Explorer wrote:That's what HH said.HexHammer wrote:Dear retard, just shut up then I won't say anything negative that makes you whine, or go elsewhere! There are plenty of forums that allows retards like you to pour out prolific nonsense and babble.
This shows he's lying:
"Philosophy Explorer wrote:
I found a Wiki link on the Milgram experiment (I had pointed out the importance of spelling before. Even if the spellchecker does point out that the additional L is wrong, one would strengthen his position by using the right spelling).
Here's the link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experimentOh still being the complete retard, you found it regardless of bad spelling, only showing that you don't comprehend the nature of relevance.
Even if you read the whole of Milgram Experiment on wiki you will not grasp the nature of it, as the wiki article is very incomplete and retards like yourself won't comprehends such deep things."
And I don't shut up for anybody including those who have diarrhea of the mouth.
PhilX