/dep/ - Depression

did you try antidepressants

>>230822
I take one citalopram a day
should I increase intake?

could play some undub drakengard for ps2 for a change

>super vague depression and anxiety about nothing in particular
>what do i do?

Perhaps tell us what's truly bothering you?

>>230829
If he knew, he probably wouldn't need help.

>>230830
I'm sure wizards here know many spells, but mind reading is not one of them. Getting any kind of help requires a communication of the problem. Even a therapist will start by listening to your self-report and then basing his diagnosis on it.

>I always feel angry, anxious and I have crying outbursts for no reason.

Emotional reactions always have triggers, it's just a matter of paying attention when it happens. If you truly have no idea what's wrong then start with self-observation and building an understanding. Defining the problem is always half of the solution anyway.

>>230831
I'm not op, but then what do you do when the problem is that you can't communicate? Every time I've tried therapy I just clam up and can't get myself to speak my real thoughts.

I don't know your circumstances but I went through this phase when I was 26/27. It wasn't fun and I feel for you.

It did stop over time, no more frequent sobbing spells and such.

>>230832
>what do you do when the problem is that you can't communicate?
>I just clam up and can't get myself to speak my real thoughts.

This is because a part of you expects that opening up to the therapist will be punishing in some way, something which you've learned implicitly about how human relationships work through your life so far.

That sense of apprehension won't go away until you demonstrate to yourself through concrete, direct experience that talking openly about your feelings, anxieties, failures, shame and so on, doesn't always lead to being ridiculed or put down or ignored. The right kind of therapist will listen to you intently, reflect back your own thoughts and give you space to explore your problems and solutions.

That dread about saying your thoughts openly is just feedback from your body, reflecting back to you knowledge that there is nothing to be gained and that it will only go badly. The therapeutic relationship will offer counter-learning, not in some abstract, rationalized way, but through direct experience - I just told this person my deepest failures and regrets and bawled my eyes out like a child but I was met with a warm response, understanding, guidance etc. The next time you do it, you won't feel like clamming up because you have at least one experience where letting go was worth it and this will be reflected in your bodily sensations.

Do you think people can understand each other fully, or even understand someone better than themselves? Obviously not, that is pretty self evident. So why do you expect some person whom doesn't know anything about you at all to understand you better than yourself? You have to realize that psychology is a half-science, which runs on methods that solve things that could be described as "typically, "usually", "most of the time", etc. Lets assume it works at all(large assumption) it would only work on the majority of the population, in typical cases, and usually most of the time… probably. When these majority members who are trained in helping other majority members come to help you, it doesn't seem to do anything. Either their methods are fraud entirely, oryou are not part of this typical or majority - and cannot be helped with the same tactics.

Now ask yourself this, what is it that these """scientific""" majority people espouse the loudest? That you are "ill" and need to be "cured" so that you can "function" in their majority "society". It is in my judgement that you should reject them, reject their majority ways, and reject that you are one of them. You are unhappy, what problem is there in that? The normals have corrupted you with their brainwashing, there is nothing wrong with hating life and being unhappy. Deny the scripture they have recited to you, cast off the mental virus they have infected you with, and remove the casts that covers your uninjured limbs. Embrace depression, welcome it with open arms, it is your friend and will always be there for you. Upon embrace it shall push you away, so you must run to chase after it else you may fall for the majority "happiness" mind virus. Recognize the real threat, which is this happiness peddled to you by the typicals. You want to be happy? You want to feel good? Well clearly those goals didn't work, so instead of following the normalcattle I suggest you do the opposite. Seek deeper depression, destruction, desperation, and all other things they told you was negative.

Reminder that it was only 70 years ago that these majority groups would subject you to a lobotomy, or alternatively they may still to this day suggest a nice sort of therapy like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L2-B-aluCE. These people are not your friend, nor an ally, not even similar to yourself in any fashion at all. Find your own way through life by studying the texts of other wizards and also introspection, that's the only wizardly way.

>>230844
I agree that psychotherapeutic methods can be useless and even damaging, but I don't think one should outright reject the goal of psychotherapy entirely and then dive deeper into despair as some form of cutting the nose to spite the face.

Whether you label someone as disordered or not, he will still continue to deal with certain mental phenomena that makes him suffer. There is value in understanding that suffering and then finding ways of alleviating it. Can that be done by frying people's brains? Guzzling pills based on complete unverified theories? Probably not, but I've found through reading about different schools of psychotherapy that most of them try their best to alleviate people's suffering, often in very intricate ways that can involve talking but also wacky shit like eye movement.

I can safely say that most modern psychotherapies will at worst, waste your time and money, and likely won't result in radical, transformative change. However, there is still value in thinking about /psychotherapy/ as a concept, as a tool for dealing with one's mind. According the Dodo bird verdict, all evidence-based therapies have about the same efficacy regardless of methodology, which kinda means that they're all equally useless. Talking about your Oedipus complex statistically yields the same benefit as supposedly "scientific" shit like cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Essentially, the tools are fucking useless but that means we should make better tools, not give up on the problem or re-define so it doesn't seem to exist (if ignoring stuff helped, OP wouldn't be asking for help).

Maybe try eating bealthy foods, exercising, having a goal and meaningful hobbies or projects to work on. You said you like drawing so spend an hour every day drawing. If you can’t draw during that hour you have to sit there with a pencil and paper and not do anything. Don’t allow yourself to use phone or computer or anything, just sit there and the only activity allowed is drawing or sitting there sad and bored.

>>230845
>that means we should make better tools
Absolutely not, there will never be "better tools". The fact of the matter is that psychotherapy and psychology in general are useless and will always be useless. There is no sickness to cure, no broken bone to be held in place, no cut to be stitched together, there is nothing wrong with depression. If you don't enjoy life then it is natural to be angry or depressed, typicals will never understand this. If you think depression or sadness is some sort evil abomination to be destroyed, then you have fallen for [The Majority]'s propaganda, the only illness to be cured is the mental virus they have infected into you. That, or you yourself are a normalfag who has mistaken himself to not be one.

You know what "curing depression" through outside methods from others really means? The destruction of you as an individual. No longer are you yourself, but instead some kind of other-self now edited by The Majority. One method is direct physical means; you can see this play out in the lobotomized, during ECT therapy, and those on the strongest medication. The other method sometimes in conjunction with the first method is through manipulation of thought, in other words though brainwashing. Usually that fails by itself unless started at age 0-5 (see: "lifestyles", modern breaking down of culture, breaking down of family, consumer mindsets, etc), so drugs and ECT are used to inflict trauma so they are more susceptible to such manipulation at an older age.

“Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction - It is already happening to some extent in our own society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual's internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable.”

Psychology was philosophy, now turned into a method of controlling others. It is pure propaganda used by the majority to manipulate the extremity of society to come and get "treated", rather than realize that you just don't enjoy life or are a different kind of human than them. Psychology lacks real control groups, so instead it creates controlled groups. Catch that? The only time it is working as intended is when it uses its ability to kill and inhibit the minds of its """patients""" through abhorrent subhuman """treatmens""", as if you are just a monkey to be used as a test subject for their insane experiments. They are not your friends, not your family, they are not looking out for your best interest, these are people looking for prestige from their fellow normalcattle, and you will be their trophy through any means necessary. This is not a subject of study, it is the subjugation of anyone atypical. Now stop resisting wizzie, take your hormonal meds, and get the surgery; you were born a succubus if we say so, and you WILL be more happy even if you don't want to be.

My advice and the way of the wizardly, is to reject these normalcattle values, reject their diagnostics, reject these people as being similar to yourself, and instead to create your own values instead of following their false methods. Accept that you are not happy, accept there is nothing wrong with being not happy, accept reality, and now embrace a freedom of yourself to be comfortable and welcome to that which the "typical others" despise. A pursuit of this so called "happiness" is a cancer upon you; pursue depression as that is where your own truth lies, you will be free altogether once you choose to chase negativity and understand it's benefits for yourself. No change comes without suffering first, for it is normal to suffer if you are not finding life or an activity enjoyable. You yourself know that without me telling you, so stop running away and instead chase it.

>>230848
You know, it's kinda funny you posted a Kaczynski quote, when his entire thesis rests upon a psychological diagnosis for people's distress. Man is unhappy because modern technology has taken away his ability to engage in the "power process" and if you get rid of technology man will go back to his natural state. Was he not attempting a form of therapy as well? And did he not try to start the therapeutic process, on a rather large scale, quite forcefully by sending bombs, and printing a manifesto that would psychoeducate people and incite them into a revolution, his idea of the change process?

Similarly, you've also taken it upon yourself to diagnose society's ills and defined a form of therapy that promises to alleviate people's suffering, as long as they accept themselves and who they are and reject the rest of society and its ideas - because what causes the suffering is the pursuit of relief and the medicine is worse than the sickness.

The fallacy of anti-psychiatry is simple: we have had terrible solutions, therefore the problem does not exist. Even if we forget the entire DSM, people would still experience psychological disorder, one would just be unaware of it, blame evil spirits or simply beat people because they were misbehaving. But then, should the crazies just go live by themselves in the wilderness, free from society? Perhaps, but that's also just another therapy method, a daily dose of isolation and alienation, one that really helped Ted Kaczynski so it can probably work for everyone else :)

Like I said, the tools are useless and we should make better ones. Despite your insistence that you reject the goals of psychotherapy, you still implicitly believe in them except through different means, different diagnosis and treatments.

>>230853
> Kaczynski quote when his entire thesis rests [insert random statements about ted]
I don't know why your arguing against Ted as if I am him. His quote adds to the point I was making, but no where did I state to also think the same as him on his other issues. Nor did I imply he thought the same as I do about psychology. Admittedly you gave me laugh when you call him bombing society as a form of therapy, not sure if it was intentionally a joke or just you not realizing you were stretching your point to absurdity, but I laughed regardless. The therapy for pain is just to kill them! Can't hurt if you aren't alive!
>Similarly, you've also taken it upon yourself to diagnose society's ills and defined a form of therapy that promises to alleviate people's suffering
>you still implicitly believe in them
No, that is just a lack of reading comprehension from your end, with a splash of wanting to put me in a nice self-defined box of a "tedposter" like you so desperately want to. How you could misunderstand after I specifically said things like "accept there is nothing wrong with being not happy" and that I obviously am not someone who devoted himself to any person or thing as I post statements like "and instead to create your own values.". As I said, you just want to put me into a grouping, probably because you spent too much time reading psychology books and now self-create groups to """analyze""". No control groups, only created controlled groups remember? It is hard to admit that you wasted all that time, but I think ripping off the bandaid now to clean the wound is better than letting it grow infected.

Mostly likely you will be upset by my reply and act obtuse so I shall reiterate what I mean. Society is not ill, it is by default a smooth running operation with an intent to crush anyone against it, and force you to work for it in an efficient manner. Society is the one who tells those on the extremities they are ill, simply because they do not enjoy this society or their lives. These extremities are "ill" because they are not running at 100% capacity to keep society running smooth. It is the majority who believe that everyone should be happy, just the same as the psychologists whom you have let fester in your mind. To the point where you think being against psychology is a fallacy, yes just being against psychology is a fallacy to you. This is suppose to be the part where I mock you for allowing others to very clearly have curated your very thoughts, but instead I will just state that supporting psychology is a fallacy to keep things simple.

>>230854
>>230853
Actually upon reflection, "The therapy for pain is just to kill them!" is actually the kind of thoughts from psychologists. "The therapy for depression is just to kill emotions!", man psychology is a fucking riot. Well it's a riot for everyone who didn't get lobotomized, shocked, drugged, brainwashed, manipulated, and all the rest anyways.

>>230854
I wasn't saying you were a "tedposter" per se, just wanted to drive my point through something you might already be familiar with and highlight the similarity, as what you're doing is not different from what psychiatry does or certain isolated mathematicians in the woods. Can you not see that you've made a diagnosis and then suggested a cure?

You might not have an M.D. or want to be associated with the dreaded "brainwashers" and "lobotomists", but you've come to observe that certain people suffer in society because of their predisposition and then offered a solution in the form of rejection of societal values and creating your own? Now, for what purpose? Ah, surely it is to alleviate mental suffering, wiz? And is that not one of the defining goals of psychotherapy?

The rest of your post is fighting with some strawman you've conjured up. I've said numerous times that I do not agree with the tools used by psychiatrists and therapists alike, but you still see fit to paint me as someone that advocates for the field or its methods. I think there is value in alleviating mental suffering, which has been done with philosophy and religion since the ancients. The stoics did not call themselves therapists, but what they were doing was surely psychotherapy of some kind.

Anyway. if I was truly trying to "analyze" you, I'd point out the defensive nature of your post, but I'd rather have a fruitful discussion than to put you down and endlessly pontificate.

>>230820
>Can we help each other here?
And risk accidentally helping someone with opposing political views? I don't think so.

>>230857
What opposing political views?
Perhaps two parties could meet and learn to get along?
Yes, its sounds naive but might be worth a try?

OP here,
I would like to thank you all for the advice and meaningful discussion.
Life is pure shit, bet perhaps there might be some gold in it.

>>230855
Not saying I was a Tedposter despite posting a meme picture of him and devoting half you post to him, being intentionally obtuse for the sake of an argument must be fun.

>Can you not see that you've made a diagnosis and then suggested a cure?
Can you not see that I've made no diagnosis nor suggested a cure since there has been no diagnosis? What diagnosis did I made when I suggest there is no illness or even a definition of this illness at all? Let us understand what a diagnosis means in a medical sense:
diagnosis [ dahy-uhg-noh-sis ]
Medicine/Medical.
the process of determining by examination the nature and circumstances of a diseased condition.
di·​ag·​no·​sis
Definition of diagnosis
1a : the art or act of identifying a disease from its signs and symptoms
diagnosis
[di″ag-no´sis]
. determination of the nature of a cause of a disease.

How far are you going to stretch diagnosis just to defend psychology in this immature fashion? I'm sure you plan on suggesting that diagnosis is just an analysis of a problem, except that is not it's medical usage at all. Psychology itself refers to extremity thoughts as "mental illness", even in the medical reference "International Classification of Diseases" there are "mental disorders" listed. So please don't bother with such pathetic attempts and just concede the point.

>certain people suffer in society because of their predisposition and then offered a solution in the form of rejection of societal values and creating your own?
Next you will be tell me that if one walks outside to see the sun rising, turns to someone and says "the sun rising is natural, do not worry"; he is making a medically defined diagnosis and also suggesting a cure. If a child is happy when their parents hug them and you say "yes, that is natural to enjoy this", you are now suggesting a diagnosis and a cure? You are a baffoon, moronic, and a complete idiot. I repeat myself again, the extremities of society are unhappy, because they are unhappy. There is nothing to fix, there is no cure for a disease that does not exist, I do not follow psychology's thoughts that this is "mental illness", disease, or illness at all. You are unhappy, so what? All you can do is accept it, to self introspect like every human does even without psychology telling them to, and to create your own values like every human does whom does not fit into The Majority's value system. There is no illness, there is no cure, there is nothing wrong with being unhappy, it is the self reacting to things it does not like and then becoming mad, upset, or depressed.

>you still see fit to paint me as someone that advocates for the field or its methods
Then why do you post pictures of psychology book guides? Why do you hilariously attempt to state that merely being against psychology is a fallacy in itself, as if it were some holy scripture outside the realm of mortals? What point did your first reply to me have, if not to disagree with my claim to reject psychology altogether? You yourself state that "there is still value in thinking about /psychotherapy/", yet now pretend the opposite when it fancies you.

So eager to escape the psychology hole you placed yourself in, that you run away into roman philosophy as if psychology is even somewhat related to such a thing. Philosophy and psychology, for you these words have no meaning or difference? Obviously not, not even you with your lack of understanding in basic terms like diagnosis or therapy will you admit such a thing.

Stoic therapy? Whats next, cynic therapy? Platonic form therapy? What are you stretching therapy to mean at this point? Basic self reflection? Conversation with another? Understanding of the world? Lets do this again with definition of basic words:
Therapy
/ˈθer.ə.pi/
a treatment that helps someone feel better, grow stronger, etc., especially after an illness
therapy
[ ther-uh-pee ]
the treatment of disease or disorders, as by some remedial, rehabilitating, or curative process:
therapy noun
/ˈθerəpi/
​ the treatment of a physical problem or an illness

Let us apply this psychology, "a treament of a [mental] disease or disorder" would apply perfectly and align with definitions of psychotherapy from three different dictionaries. What disease were the Stoics diagnosing exactly? "The world is quasi deterministic" disease? "May the logos guide us" disorder? Quoting Heraclitus over and over again? You have no idea what the fuck your talking about. You think self help books are the same as a ancient philosophy whose main purpose is an understanding of the world, and secondly how best to act based in that understood world. Instead in your warped mind you think philosophy is the same as psychology and self help; so you flip it around to be firstly how best to act in the world, secondly to change your understanding of the world to reach what is "best" to act. Which is why you fail to understand or differentiate everything and anything, instead of understanding something first you believe you should change your understanding to whatever "is best". You do not understand philosophy which is a study of the Truth, that is an attempt to find what must be the unquestionable Truth.

Go to /lit/ and use the "start with the greeks" meme images, then read Plato's and Aristotle's complete works, not just the republic and nicomachean ethics like the redditors and normalcattle do. Wikipedia and google is not an understanding of anything. Speak of philosophy after you have done this.

> fruitful discussion
Then read what I write instead of repeating your worthless drivel over and over again, despite not comprehending basic terminology from the "infallible" and holy scripture of psychology that you preach.

>>230866
meant to reply to >>230856

>>230866
Turns out words can have multiple meanings. I mean, you weren't really calling me an angle between 90 and 180 degrees when you called me obtuse, were you? Clearly, diagnosis can used in a non-medical sense, without implying a biological disease at all. Tech support people use "diagnostic" tools to figure out the cause of computer malfunction.

There isn't much consensus in the psychotherapy field and some practitioners have to use the diagnostic labels in the DSM for insurance reasons and others shun the entire thing. Clearly, you have a very surface level understanding of the field and its many aspects. It seems easier to just put the entire thing in a box called "brainwashing" and call it a day.

>I repeat myself again, the extremities of society are unhappy, because they are unhappy. There is nothing to fix, there is no cure for a disease that does not exist, I do not follow psychology's thoughts that this is "mental illness", disease, or illness at all.

But what is this "unhappiness" you speak of? Is it not a mental phenomena? And are you not engaging in psychology, albeit unwillingly, when you speak of it? God forbid someone asked you to define it. You should learn to separate the establishment of psychiatry, the people you call "brainwashers" and "lobotomists", from the simple inquiry into the mind (psychology literally means "study of the mind"). By rejecting psychology, you're essentially suggesting that we should live in ignorance, because asking any questions about the mind and its effects and causes will suddenly transform oneself into a caricature madman in a looney bin.

>Then why do you post pictures of psychology book guides?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Clearly there is value in understanding the mind (or at least one's own mind). Even if every theory before has failed terribly, knowing what does not work can bring about what does. Each of the books I posted contains an element of the Truth. Being acquainted with different approaches will naturally make you skeptical towards the field, but will also help you integrate the various common factors from all of them.

>Why do you hilariously attempt to state that merely being against psychology is a fallacy in itself, as if it were some holy scripture outside the realm of mortals?

Re-read that part of my post again. Perhaps you are so eager to "btfo" me with your superior intellect that you couldn't take a few minutes to understand one paragraph. Anti-psychiatry is a movement based on the view that psychiatric treatments are often more damaging than helpful. I've said many times that I agree with the notion that the tools used by the psychiatric establishment are often damaging, but what I highlight as the fallacy is the notion that if all solutions to a problem have failed, then the problem does not exist. And this is your view - unhappiness is just unhappiness, no problem, no need for a solution, without any justification why people should accept suffering other than "well then go get lobotomized and brainwashed you obtuse cunt".

>What disease were the Stoics diagnosing exactly?

There you go again, building a strawman or just "lacking reading comprehension" or being a silly obtuse angle. I did not equate the entirety of stoic thought with psychotherapy, but a lot of what they did on the ethics side of things was concerned with acquiring tranquility. They did not refer to emotional distress as a "disease", but surely they recognized that it brought unneeded suffering to people and that a tranquil state was preferable. This is the essence of psychotherapy, using psychological tools to bring about a preferable psychological state.

Honestly, this will be my last reply. You seem to be quite eager to endlessly misrepresent everything I say and I do not feel like endlessly repeating myself and spoon feeding you or writing it so precisely and succinctly that it couldn't possibly be misrepresented by even the most obtuse poster.

>>230870
>Turns out words can have multiple meanings
Except the context defines what meaning is being used, look at your picture where it defines what it's medical usage is. See pic related. We are not speaking of tech support, nor does there being "no consensus in psychotherapy" have any effect on the definition of diagnosis you absolute retard. Did you really think this was a worthwhile reply? You are grasping for straws that don't even exist, pathetic behavior.
>You should learn to separate the establishment of psychiatry
>"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Yet you not only promote this establishment with your book guides, but also by promoting psychotherapy. Do we need to walk thorough what psychotherapy means once again? So too that proves you also accept the thought while entertaining it, due to promoting psychotherapy. By definition of psychotherapy you agree that there is mental illness to be cured.
>And are you not engaging in psychology, albeit unwillingly, when you speak of it?
>what is this "unhappiness" you speak of?
No, because psychology is a medical field outside of philosophy. I do not state that thought or emotions are something to be cured, nor are they an injury, or anything else related to medical practice. Asking what happiness is defined by in the way you are attempting is a philosophical question, not a psychological one. You really don't know the difference between the two do you?
>unhappiness is just unhappiness
>all solutions to a problem have failed, then the problem does not exist.
Unhappiness IS just unhappiness, it is not a disease or illness to be cured like you and your holy priests pretend it is, I reject your church and its scripture. At least now you finally understand and comprehend what I wrote, congratulations for that; but unfortunately that is not only what you have done, for you pretend I created a fallacy where solution have failed to a problem I don't think exists. I'm not sure how many levels of retardation you are on to believe I think the problem does not exist, but also that solutions to something that doesn't exist have failed. Its clear what you really meant to say, that is that attacking your holy church is a fallacy itself; obviously you could not state this directly so you pretend to state that there being no illness is a fallacy to you. Except there is no innate fallacy in that so you create one by contradiction your own fallacy, where I simultaneously believe there is and is not a problem at all. Mental gymnastic does not even begin to cover what you have done.
>so eager to "btfo" me
You never attempted real conversation, only to project your own tendencies to diagnosis others onto me. After I clarified, you still demanded I was doing a thing which I was not, so I re-clarified via dictionary definition, and still again you demand I am doing something which is wrong by my own account and by dictionary definition's account. You are a buffoon, who did in fact get "btfo" because you came to me looking to argue and not understand or converse.
>surely they recognized that it brought unneeded suffering to people and that a tranquil state was preferable
Again reading comprehension skills are not your forte, read this again: "ancient philosophy whose main purpose is an understanding of the world, and secondly how best to act based in that understood world. Instead in your warped mind you think philosophy is the same as psychology and self help; so you flip it around to be firstly how best to act in the world, secondly to change your understanding of the world to reach what is "best" to act.". You clearly don't understand philosophy or psychology, just admit it.
>Honestly, this will be my last reply.
You will still read this anyways, coward. To be fair it was in your best interest to leave the argument, you had lost by your second reply.

>>230820
https://youtu.be/LO1mTELoj6o
get some sunlight everyday
do some excercise everyday
have a consistent wake time


alternatively try getting on welfare and then getting a kazynscki cabin and start gardening or farming or really anything that lets you engage in the power process™

>>230848
Maybe it's not pursuing depression but pursuing actual happiness as opposed to the "happiness" people want to force on you?

>>230890
No, any idea of pursuing "happiness" is for normalcattle; they are satisfied by whatever it is a life offers them. Maybe they enjoy social interaction, prestige, exercise, "feeling good", white picket fences, wageslavery, goals, or whatever else they think brings them "happiness". It is not for those who are on the extremities of life, for otherwise they would have just been part of The Majority. You have to realize that the Typical Man is so absurd that he might even enjoy and take pride in cutting his lawn. Despite the fact that it will just regrow, regardless of the fact no one truly cares about his lawn, even if you explain that by cutting the grass they are just accepting the slavery of an abstract social pressure that is not a real physical thing. Of course they get upset or default to "cuz I like it" immediately upon even asking why they enjoy their never ending slavery to lawn care of all things. These people are some other kind of human being than the extremities, they just accept and work on whatever is told to them, never questioning why they do anything at all.

There is a reason they are called the herd, the ant, the cattle, the worker bee, the majority, and a host of other names. These people are not the same as those who are "abnormal", yet they are the most likely to tell you that they are in fact similar to you. After all, why would they NOT think others are similar to themselves, when the vast majority of the time people truly are similar to themselves. So they attempt to convince you that you are also the same and must value the same things. Your entire life has been never ending propaganda from The Majority. They don't even realize what they are doing because they are just acting naturally, they do not question or think "why" nearly ever. The only time "why" enters their mind is when someone on the extremity acts out or attempts to question this Typical Man.

You have been tricked into thinking sadness, depression, suffering, and all the rest are bad, wrong, and to be avoided at all costs. What is it that depression exists for, and what purpose does it serve? Is it not obvious that it is your mind telling you whatever it is you are doing is not enjoyable, or that it is lacking something of value or worth? It is clear to myself that negative thoughts and feelings are what causes one to question oneself, to doubt ones actions, to reflect on things, to introspect, to truly and utterly change if you would only listen to it. Who told you that depression is wrong or an illness? The Majority. Who pursues happiness, comfort, and contentment? The Majority. Who does the same things day in day out and never questions anything ever told to him? The Majority. Decline their values, resist their propaganda, turn down their "reality", renounce their being similar to yourself. Find your own freedom and pursue depression, suffering, misery, agony, and all that which comes from these things.

>So how do I get out of this?
By yourself.
>Is there a way normfags can help us?
No, except for giving us financial support like welfare, charity or whatever bux.
>I've been seeing a therapist.
Stop.
>I always feel angry, anxious and I have crying outbursts for no reason.
Examine yourself why you feel this way. Identify the root of the problem and get rid of it.
>I feel time goes twice as fast and my time is running out.
This is actually good, if you would suffer greatly then you would feel time was moving very slowly. And btw, time is always running out. Nothing to do about it. Let it flow.
>I want to make drawings express my self but I wast my time watching movies and fapping while my time is running out.
So weigh things. What do you value more? Fapping and watching movies or drawing? Sounds like you don't really want to draw or whatever, you just want to sound like an artist. There is nothing wrong with masturbating and watching movies if that is what you want to do and like.
>Can we help each other here?
No.

>>230909
Thanks for the insight, Nietzsche-kun. But you are a hypocrite because people do things that give them pleasure and happiness on some level. You wrote this post because it raised your dopamine levels slightly, too.
Do you think our Lord Jesus Christ gave up his life because of some ideal or because he didn't care about his own personal happiness? No, he let himself get crucified exactly because he thought that was the way toward happiness and it caused him the most pleasure. Pleasure/happiness and suffering go hand-in-hand many times. Nobody does anything for the sake of being miserable or suffering, unless he enjoys it somehow.

>>230920
>you are a hypocrite because people do things that give them pleasure and happiness on some level.
You fail to understand, christcuck-kun, I did not once suggest one will never have any sort of pleasure or happiness from anything. My suggestion is to not pursuit this normalcattle inspired "happiness", but rather to pursuit any form of suffering instead. Turn down escapism, reject the medicine, do not rely on others to as some sort of fix to something that is not broken to begin with. Instead face yourself, face your thoughts, and dive deeper into depression instead of away from it.

As for your Jesus Christ example, I have no intention of debating it; arguing with the religious on their holy saints is the same as arguing with the typical man whom is a slave to his lawn, it is a pointless affair. The only reason I made this post is just so you or others do not think you have caught my tongue in some fashion. Call it "cope" or reply with a smug attitude; I care not since I have spoken as I wish and do not require your seal of approval.

>>230930
I'm not a christian, I just used Jesus as an example because he is a well-known person. I'm a hedonist.

>but rather to pursuit any form of suffering instead
Which is nonsense and hypocritical, because nobody wants to suffer voluntarily for the sake of suffering. People take up suffering because it will lead to happiness in the future or because they derive some joy from their particular kind of suffering. This nietzschean "face problems bro, live dangerously, don't avoid pain" mentality is just the result of trying to compensate for something, the result of trying to appear "manly" at all times and "tough".
>Turn down escapism, reject the medicine, do not rely on others to as some sort of fix to something that is not broken to begin with.
If you are depressed then there is something wrong with you, obviously. Something broken as you said. Nonetheless, I agree with your advice on most part except for rejecting escapism. Escapism is the ultimate answer in the end and the only sensible solution.
>Instead face yourself, face your thoughts, and dive deeper into depression instead of away from it.
I agree, except for the last part. Diving deeper into depression won't get you out of it. It is good to know yourself and your problems and essential to get out of depression. But you have to pursue happiness and pleasure of some sort in order to defeat depression.

>>230948
A hedonist on /dep/, how ironic. Despite your search and pursuit of happiness, of ataraxia, of aponia, you come to a depression forum; in other words you have failed your own philosophy. Will you lie and act as if you are an archangel who comes to spread the word of Epicurus to others who are short of this fraud of words "happiness"? Yet instead of doing that you would come to battle me, is that how you attempt to convince others of your "truth"? Now it is I who declares you the hypocrite. You run away from depression yet end up here, you seek pleasure yet have not even had sex, you value friendship and happiness with others yet spend your time on an imageboard. Do not joke anymore, you are not a hedonist nor anything else, you are just a feeble man who uses escapism to hide from HIMSELF. Neither will you live life by your current set of values, nor will you shed those values for something new, you are a lukewarm human being. Anyone who attempts to be anything other than yourself is "trying to compensate for something", because you have no actual reason besides resentment of yourself. At best your suggestion for those who suffer is to escape themselves like you did, never do you tell them that by doing so they are just neutering themselves. Run from pain and never feel pleasure, run from yourself and never be alive. You are weak and ultimately just wishing to make other men to become as weak as yourself, so that they may gather them beside you and have them lick your wounds for you!

A christian who is celibate and posts here is a more worthy man than a hedonist who cannot even follow or achieve such a meager and worthless philosophy. If you wish for ataraxia so desperately then at least follow stoicism, I doubt you have the strength for such a thing though.

>>230920
>There is nothing wrong with masturbating and watching movies if that is what you want to do and like.

There has to be a little something wrong with masturbating and watching cartoons all day, right? If enough people go down that route, then who maintains the electrical grid for everyone else to keep doing unproductive, passive shit? Realistically I think most people want to work, so maybe a hyperbolic outcome, but there is something there. I don't have a moral issue with it, but if enough people lived that way, there'd be no civilization. It makes some sense for OP and others suffering such akrasia to feel bad about living a primarily consumptive lifestyle for long periods of time - we must have the instinct from the millennia our ancestors spent among their tribesmen, worrying about whether they were pulling enough weight enough to demand favors when sick/injured, etc.

>>230964
Can you elaborate on what you mean by pursuing depression?

>>230964
> you come to a depression forum; in other words you have failed your own philosophy. Will you lie and act as if you are an archangel who comes to spread the word of Epicurus to others who are short of this fraud of words "happiness"?
I come here because I've been here for a long time. You don't have to be depressed to post on /dep/, wizkid. I can share my thoughts on depression and other topics freely.
And you are retarded if you think being a hedonist means that I'm necessarily a fan of Epicurus. Not everyone needs some kind of idol or role model to look up to like you need. Hedonism has many kinds, epicurean philosophy is only one of them. You sound like those idiots who are into identity politics, only you are doing it with philosophy. You are a teenager most likely who read Nietzsche for the 1st time and now feels enlightened and thinks he knows the answers to everything in life.
>You run away from depression yet end up here
I don't have to run away from something I don't have because unlike you I have overcome it instead of surrendering to it like a slave. Keep deluding yourself that being depressed makes you special or tough or superior in some twisted way - you don't get any award for being a miserable sack of shit. You won't become the epic "tragic artist" or philosopher or whatever just because you are depressed. If anything, depression only prevents you from achieving anything good in life. Nietzsche could praise suffering exactly because he didn't come across true suffering, because he lived an extremely sheltered life. The grass is greener on the other side, you know. What doesn't kill you doesn't make you stronger necessarily, in most of the cases it cripples you mentally or physically. But like I said, by any means, go on living in this romanticized delusion of yours that suffering is useful and makes you stronger.
>you seek pleasure yet have not even had sex
All right, this is typical normalfag mentality now. Associating pleasure instantly with sex…There are many kinds of pleasures, most of them superior to sexual pleasure, wizkid.
>you value friendship and happiness with others yet spend your time on an imageboard
Again, not an epicurean. And I spend my time on wizchan because, gee I don't know, it gives me pleasure? And I don't want friends because I find the company of others tiresome and boring.
>who uses escapism to hide from HIMSELF
You don't understand wizkid. Escapism is used for getting rid of reality, not myself. Once you grow up and realize reality is utter crap you will most likely see my wisdom too.
>You are weak and ultimately just wishing to make other men to become as weak as yourself, so that they may gather them beside you and have them lick your wounds for you!
This is funny, considering you are the one here who is trying to shame others for being happy. You actively advocate for depression and a depressed life, I wonder why anyone would do that? Stop being a bitter cunt and let others find happiness, satisfaction and peace. Being a frustrated, miserable, bitter faggot on purpose like Nietzsche won't get you anywhere. You are digging your own grave.

>>230970
No, there is nothing wrong with masturbating and watching cartoons all day if that makes you happy and satisfied. And no, let the norms do their own shit, let them work and maintain society. Norms are afraid of living differently, let them be stuck in a mediocre life.
>we must have the instinct from the millennia our ancestors spent among their tribesmen, worrying about whether they were pulling enough weight enough to demand favors when sick/injured, etc.
>Realistically I think most people want to work
Nope, it is all education, indoctrination and normalfag values getting hammered into the heads of people. Most people don't question whether they should work or not, they just go with the flow and follow what others do. Because society raises you to believe that you are only a good person or worth something if you contribute to society, which is a pile of crap. Once you completely leave behind normalfag values you won't care anymore about being useful or not.

You need meditation. Read the book power of now.

>>230985
You accuse me of identity politics, yet the only person who has identified himself or others was you. Indeed it is you who has now twice put me into a "Nietzsche" box, not only did you start this "identity politics" but also labeled yourself an identity (hedonist). Still, you turn around and proclaim that it is I who commits the crimes you carry out? You have only proven what I said was the truth, that you cannot face yourself and are a hypocrite. It was in your favor to admit you follow Epicurus, he was the only worthwhile hedonist to exist and I attempted to do you favor by assuming you followed him. You are scared to admit what hedonism you follow, because you do not in actuality follow any kind of hedonism, instead all you offer is escapism. Pretending as if you overcame depression, yet have no advice except to flee from yourself. A coward scared of his own reflection, projecting his own tendencies and self loathing onto others, choosing to use childish insults and identity labels of "nietzchean", "normalfag" and "wizkid"; it is obvious which one of us has lost himself in emotion and irrationality. So far gone is your rationality that you pretend there would be no pleasure from sex, or that you have found something superior to sex. Does that mean you have have had sex, so now you could judge what is better than it? You lie to yourself and me that imageboards would give you more pleasure than real friendship, despite real data and the history of man refuting such things. You are self deluding, since no one here would fall for your lies.

>Being a frustrated, miserable, bitter faggot
>Stop being a bitter cunt and let others find happiness
>Once you grow up and realize reality is utter crap you will most likely see my wisdom too.
And so the Escapist shows his true colors at last! Hedonist is what you are? No, that is clear to anyone who bothered to read your drivel. A Projectionist and Escapist are far more in tune with who you are; your own frustrated, miserable, and bitter hatred of life projected onto me and then escaped from via masturbation, video games, and anime. I - the one who seeks suffering, does not despise or hate life; it is you - the happiness seeker who does and feels bitter resentment, you have admitted so yourself.

>>230820
Sounds like Borderline personality disorder to me. Common in succubi but it can afflict men too.
A lot of therapists are shit. I've seen many over my long and troubled life; one was great, another was helpful, the rest were trash.
Most therapists are only trained to help normalfags get over their parent dying or something; a natural thing that gets people naturally sad and sometimes that lasts a bit too long. If you've got trauma, and I think many wizards do to some degree, they. can't. help. you. At all. ALWAYS ask for a trauma trained therapist. ALWAYS.

>>230982
What is it that causes you the greatest anguish, the worst pain? Have you felt that stabbing knife when it sinks its tip into you? It is so frightening that even I admit I ran from it at first, the kind of pain that makes you feel closer to death than alive. The cheat tightens as if it cannot breath, the head swirls as if it cannot think. You try not to think about it, to distract yourself, to flee in any fashion possible to release its skeletal and icy grip over you. You may tune out the water flowing into your hull, but that does not mean the water stops flowing; a fallen tree unheard by anyone has still fallen. As you run away it chases after you, hunting and tracking your every footstep, gaining speed as it does. So you run faster and faster, still the demon comes for you. The final answer for most is to reject reality and decline themselves. They give up running, and so too they must give up everything else they wish for. Since they cannot outrun the demon called depression, they swim into the ocean and float forever more. As they do, that terrifying monster swallows the land they once lived on, it devours anything and everything thus gaining in speed, size, and strength. Should the man swim back to the land left, the demon shall only be more powerful than before, so too the man should be weaker for the time he spent floating in the ocean adrift. That is the way of The Majority, lost adrift in the endless ocean, never does he know himself or the monster, he rejects both when he rejects one.

So what do I mean by pursuing depression? Welcome that monster to you, let him consume you and your thoughts! Find what he is searching for, what guides him, why he does what he does. Accept that knife, do not deny its pierce, pull its blade length inwards until it's handle smashes upon your rib-cage. Sometimes he might spit you out, or run away from you in fear of your embrace, you mustn't let him get away from you, find him again for while it runs it still devours the land you live in. It is like a spawn of locust leaving all barren in it's path, and should it eat everything else you shall be left with only one thing. Apathy, the evilest of evils. Nothingness begets nothing, so to does apathy beget apathy. That vortex that seeks to drown you in it's spiral, leading only to a sure death. All answers spring from one first and final answer, do you wish to exist or not to? My answer is a firm and absolute yes. So I shall accept the monster, the demon, that great anguish; rather than to drift in the sea neither alive nor dead like The Majority, or to have a final death from apathy.

>>230988
>So far gone is your rationality that you pretend there would be no pleasure from sex, or that you have found something superior to sex. Does that mean you have have had sex, so now you could judge what is better than it? You lie to yourself and me that imageboards would give you more pleasure than real friendship, despite real data and the history of man refuting such things.
I should've known you were a crab, Nietzsche fanboys always turn out to be the biggest failed normals. Next time just mention at the beginning of a discussion, so I will know that I should ignore you.

>>231007
A poor excuse to run away, you are the seeker of pleasure not I. In fact if you had admitted to following Epicurus then you could have deflected this away since it is an unnecessary pleasure, it is a shame you don't even know what he values. Not that you would or even could follow it anyways, o lord of escapism.

>>231007
If you've ever actually read anything by Nietzsche you'd know he's not even close to a "Nietzscheist".

>>230993
Apathy is the answer then. Works sometimes for me but most of the time it doesn't

>>231009
He is a nietzschean wannabe Superman who thinks suffering and pain are some divine gifts that you shouldn't evade but embrace. He even has the same unhealthy fixation on manliness and appearing manly at all times, he looks down on the "majority" while he himself still holds values and opinions of the majority, etc. Classical hypocrite nietzschean. Plus he writes like a self-important faggot university student who read Nietzsche for the first time in his life.

>>231008
For you, I have some things to add:
1. Elaborate already why you think suffering and pain are beneficial to us. Don't bullshit around with this poetic mumbojumbo, just tell us clearly in a few sentences why you think suffering is good.
2. It is quite pathetic and funny how you despise the majority yet you hold the core views and thoughts of the majority yourself: namely, you believe that friendship and sex are the greatest pleasures in life and make you the happiest. You are a sheep trying to roleplay as a wolf. Back to the herd with you.

>>231019
His style is definitely reminiscent of that Zarathustra book, but I doubt he has any actual real beliefs and convictions. Probably just a retarded contrarian that finds fault with every perspective for the sole purpose of looking down on others.

Going after pleasure, avoiding pain, seeking order in the world? Pffft, that's what The Majority does and I don't mean the majority, I mean The Majority capitalized. Meanwhile, he absolutely revels in the delight of larping as philosopher online, but that's not "happiness" in the normalfag sense, of course. If you disagree, get some Reading Comprehension™ and have sex, i/n/cel.

>>230820
I don’t know.
Some other lad who gets wasted biweekly, ploughs through gfs and is invited to events bimonthly had a micromeltdown about an Autism self diagnosis and got pined for by all of his fucking mates while I spent 40 minutes on the bus trying to prevent myself from having a grand maul seizure because the sky was clear, and nobody has or will ever truely empathise or understand.

>>231019
The core views and thoughts of The Majority are to "feel good", is that not what you yourself suggested when you said that people only do things for pleasure? As I sated before The Majority assumes everyone is the same as themselves, which is why you think that, and also cannot comprehend anyone who thinks differently than yourself. The Majority flees from pain and despises anyone who says they are unhappy. If you had read what I previously wrote you would know what I find beneficial about suffering and pain. " It is clear to myself that negative thoughts and feelings are what causes one to question oneself, to doubt ones actions, to reflect on things, to introspect, to truly and utterly change if you would only listen to it.". Read what I write.

>>231021
I'm assuming you are the psychology shiller? Why are you hiding over here yet still reading my posts like I predicted? You will throw shots at me with others but run from an argument when engaged, only proving that you are in-fact what I said you were, a coward.

>>231017
If you seriously followed apathy you would not be here to reply to me. If you wish to die, then die this second; why delay? Go outside now and find the height on which you may throw yourself off. Those robbed of emotion, purpose, and consciousness are only left with bodily pains and cravings; death becomes your first and last answer. Your goddess apathy is nothingness, so join her in that nothingness. Obliterate yourself as a sacrifice to her, for what could be a finer offering than yourself? Any living or thinking being causes her disgrace, offend her no longer, make haste and leave everything behind so you might elope with her into that endless void.

>>231023
I "ran away" because there was nothing to argue against. Your views are clearly inconsistent and the meanings of different words and phrases shifts according to your needs. Your go to strategy is to be as vague as possible, never provide definitions for the specialized meanings you have for certain words and then accuse others of projecting views you do not have or lacking reading comprehension. Here's a protip: if people are indeed continually misunderstanding your drivel, you should aim to clarify your points.

>It is clear to myself that negative thoughts and feelings are what causes one to question oneself, to doubt ones actions, to reflect on things, to introspect, to truly and utterly change if you would only listen to it.

Sounds an awful lot like psychology to me. I mean, introspect? You meant shining a light up your arse instead of the mental exercise, right? Careful there, you might find yourself contradicting your entire rant about psychology. Seems like you're using psychological tools, and for what purpose? Presumably, the negative thoughts and feelings go away after motivating you to change? Could it be said that you've used introspection to figure out the problem (since diagnose is a loaded term for you) and then solved it? One could say that you've noticed a causal relationship between the state of the world and your own emotions? And would this theory not be psychological in nature? And would taking appropriate action as you saw fit be therapeutic and alleviate the suffering caused by your affect?

No, I must be mistaken. I'm just reading too much into it, again. Ah, curse you Zarathustra, you have won again and I have no choice but to accept that I am a coward indeed. You have diagn- err, figured out the problem correctly, I am simply intimidated by your poetic, life-affirming prose. I shall take your advice and interpret these negative feelings of shame and try to introspect, so that I may change after all. You were right, psychology was not the answer after all.

>>231025
Now that I notice you hiding in the shadows you come back to me, where is your conviction? "Honestly, this will be my last reply.", you couldn't even last more than a few days, gutless fraud. I'll tell you why you came back to argue with me again; you were stuck in a war you could not win and had already lost, so you took to the hills in fright of that. Now that you are free to start anew on a topic on your choice you feel safe, as safe as one can feel when they fear so much. That's fine, if you need a fresh start then it is obvious who won the last butting of heads. Now, the only person in this thread I accused of a lack of reading comprehension was yourself, who are these "others" you are speaking of? You are scared to stand for yourself, so you raise an invisible and non existent group to rally behind you, to bolster your views, to stop your quivering, to pull you up ready to battle me. Alone I stand, to reject you and your imaginary forces, they will hold no sway over me because they are a figment of your mind not mine.

Introspection is now psychology? Whats next, does emotion belong to psychology? Is thought on anything psychology? Ah I forgot, you think philosophy and psychology are one and the same. Well perhaps at this stage it is rather that you think anything the mind does is psychology. Thought itself is psychology! The world is psychology! My holy men and their scripture are infallible because they contain the holy spirit of psychology which takes part in all things! Thus nothing cannot be psychology!

>>231019
>He is a nietzschean wannabe Superman who thinks suffering and pain are some divine gifts that you shouldn't evade but embrace. He even has the same unhealthy fixation on manliness and appearing manly at all times, he looks down on the "majority" while he himself still holds values and opinions of the majority, etc. Classical hypocrite nietzschean. Plus he writes like a self-important faggot university student who read Nietzsche for the first time in his life.
Okay, he doesn't hold Nietzchean views but I do admit he does seem like college Nietzcheist that watched a few youtube videos and his lecturer instead of the books.

>>231026
>Introspection is now psychology?

It literally means "study of the mind". What exactly are you doing when you are "introspecting" i.e. looking inside of yourself? Presumably, you are not doing a colonoscopy but observing your own mental state and making a hypothesis. You are studying your own mind whether you call it that or not.

My entire argument with you was trying to teach you how to differentiate between the establishment of psychiatry and the study of the mind. One doesn't need the DSM or the American psychiatric association to introspect and create hypothesis about one's own mental state and take action with the aim of alleviating suffering caused by various mental states. I could not get you to admit this and you were deliberately dodging any type of psychological terms but you've finally let the cat out of the bag with the last quote. The more you elaborate your views (unwillingly, as many others probe you), the more you reveal your hypocrisy or perhaps willful ignorance of the nature of your own methods.

And your next reply will be yet another attempt to dodge and call me a coward or shill with epic prose on the level of a translated German philosophy text.

>>231023
When I said people do things for pleasure, I meant everyone. You try to cheat yourself with advocating for a life of sorrow and suffering. Even if you do live a life of hardship on purpose, ask yourself the question: why do I live this way? Because it makes you feel good, happy, satisfied on some level. Now I don't know you, I don't know what is going on in your head. You can do this because you are genuinely a masochist who derives pleasure from agony and pain. Or you exhibit this behavior because you want to be different or want to feel superior to others, so you go around preaching the value of suffering and maybe you do live by your values and practice what you preach but in the end you chose the thorny path exactly because it gives you pleasure. The pleasure of knowing that you are special, different, "superior" to others in one way is irresistible for you. Regardless of reasons, you are no different from the normalfag down your street who lives for partying and sex and you aren't different from wizards like me who spend their free time indulging in escapism. You still operate on the pleasure principle, whether you acknowledge it or not.
The core views of the majority are these: you have to work/be useful in some way to society, you have to value friendship and sex above all else, you have to play the game and prove how much better you are than others, etc. You admitted that you do share the views that friendship and sex make people the happiest so you do possess values that are extremely normal and you are still influenced by society in spite of shitting on it.
>As I sated before The Majority assumes everyone is the same as themselves, which is why you think that, and also cannot comprehend anyone who thinks differently than yourself
So what does thinking that having friends and sex makes people the happiest make you into? You act like the way you describe yourself, thinking everyone has the same needs.
>It is clear to myself that negative thoughts and feelings are what causes one to question oneself, to doubt ones actions, to reflect on things, to introspect, to truly and utterly change if you would only listen to it.
This is all well and good but why should we PURSUE suffering and negative thoughts? I agree that negative thoughts and feelings can be useful sometime but wallowing in misery for a long time needlessly will only poison the soul and mind in the long run. What you are describing is a state of constants doubt and skepticism which is just OCD at the end of the day. This state will prevent you from actually living life and doing anything, you want people to introspect 100% or most of the time and it is just stupid. You can only examine yourself and indulge in yourself for so long before you get bored.

>>231021
>>231028
He is starting to come off more as a hyper-skeptic as the thread goes on. But he does have the style and a couple of nietzschean traits. Nonetheless, he is an annoying wizkid.

>>231029
Psychology is a science, well "science" anyways; and it is within the medical field of science. Introspection is probably the furthest possible thing from science, you have no way to control bias since you are both the tester and testee; how could you possibly "test" anything with pure introspection is beyond any comprehension anyways. Will you now pretend that observation itself is science? You twist and twirl words to mean anything and everything so I don't doubt it. Surely you plan to write "da observation is part of da science", because you think something being a part of something else means it is the same thing as the whole. You would fit in well with the Eleatics, for you would proclaim that if something come from something else it must be the same. As how could something be both similar and dissimilar. You lack nuance and depth of thought for anything and everything.

Anything to safeguard your precious and blessed psychology, anything for the church. Let me explain psychology since you don't understand your own religion, psychology is for studying OTHER minds or rather "minds" as a whole, another way to say majority cases; it has nothing to do with introspection. Psychologists do not treat themselves, they go to other therapists since treating yourself is not psychology. You only think introspection is psychology because you are a dumb faggot who mistakes philosophy and psychology, as proven when you attempted to ask me to define happiness thinking that was a psychological question. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, psychology is not philosophy. Again you don't understand, so I repeat it once more, psychology is not philosophy. Philosophy is not a medical or pure scientific field, unlike psychology which is both of those (or at least attempts to be). Your problem is being hopped up on early psychology, that is closer to philosophy and thinking that is what modern psychology is. You are lost in time, and lost in any sense of what anything is. The second psychology made "treatments" it stopped being philosophy since it stopped questioning for truth.

Psychiatry is psychology, except a more focused version on treatments of "illness". That does not mean that psychology does not accept the exact same things that psychiatry does. No, in-fact everything psychiatry does is handed down from psychology. They believe in the same principles, TREATMENT. They think that there is mental illness, disease, and something to cure. Already on the horizon, my foresight sees your message "hurr muh psychotherapy", yet what is psychotherapy itself? We have already answered that " a treatment of a [mental] disease or disorder", stop running from reality. Your church is not infallible, your holy men are not pious, and your scripture is a hoax.

>attempt to dodge
Every question I answered in detail, you are simply spewing blatant lies. Still, this is a bit rich coming from the man who ran with his tail between his legs, who went beyond dodging into a full sprint away. I suppose I am being a bit unfair, you have come crawling back for another beating, so I give you that much at least. It is too bad that you keep leading the conversation right back to where you had previously lost, history repeats and so will you probably run away again. As for my prose I am glad you enjoyed it, if it reminded you of Nietzsche's english translations then I accept your compliments; those were very well done and to be compared to them is an honor.

>>231053
> I meant everyone.
Oh I know what you wrote, and what you meant; have your eyes been blinded by the wool you cover them with? "the Majority assumes everyone is the same as themselves", you as a part of this Majority assume everyone else to be like yourself; "After all, why would they NOT think others are similar to themselves, when the vast majority of the time people truly are similar to themselves.". You are so trapped within the Majority that you think I suffer to feel good, that pain must be giving me pleasure, that an opposite is it's opposite. I should not even need to refute you, you have done fine enough for yourself. At best you have projected your seeking of pleasure onto me, since that is all an unthinking one knows. You are a cow grazing on grass, an ant carrying sugar to its colony, a hummingbird collecting nectar. To expect you to understand or even comprehend a different method of life is to expect a dog to stop barking, a leaf to not fall, or a bird to live underwater. Truly I have tried, but you do not even attempt to understand anything. The Typical Man enslaved to his lawn care, and you the same to masturbation, anime, and vidya.

You mistake the end results of The Majority's views as their actual core views, they value those things because they seek pleasure and those give them that pleasure. Even you admit this. Sex and friendship are pleasurable, to deny that is to be what you accuse me of: "you want to be different or want to feel superior to others". Which I would not put past you, as you are indeed a hypocrite as mentioned before. There are many things better than sex, but not because they feel good, and I don't mean that physically, mentally, or even spiritually. The Good is not what feels good or pleasurable, but rather is good in itself decided so by ourselves. You have placed the Good into pleasure, as do The Majority.

>why should we PURSUE suffering and negative thoughts?
You quoted my answer, either accept what I wrote or do not. Well you won't of course, because you are of The Herd, your end goal is to soak in pleasure and never think at all.

Engaging with life is the surest way to find suffering, once you have found that source of misery you may dive into it and bask in all its horror. How could you deny what I write, for did you not also admit that you dislike reality? Did you not accept that you use escapism to be rid of that reality? Is it not that you resent life and hate living itself? You cannot even accept introspection since that would require one to look at reality and themselves inside that reality. The only thing preventing you from living life is the escapism that you use to cower from it. A frightened child is what you are, anxiety washing over you, preventing you from being itself. You hate to hate, fight to give in, and cover what you can see. A moth drawn to flame, you seek any light you can and thus seek death when it scorches your wings. Sit and welcome the dark, the blind sees more than the one who covers his eyes.

>he does have the style and a couple of nietzschean traits. He is starting to come off more as a hyper-skeptic as the thread goes on
Interesting, truly I wonder what box you two posters shall attempt shove me into next. Nietzschean since I place myself out of the herd, hate the passive, and seek the pain; hyperskeptic for worshiping doubt, rejecting dogma, questioning the self. It still doesn't paint a picture on what I suggest to follow does it? What will be your thoughts be if we discuss virtue and the Good? The truth is that I am an amalgamation of many things I take to be true, you shall never find the box that encompasses me since I hand crafted this box. It is my own and not of another's, each part is not unique but perhaps the whole is. You may find it to be of no worth, that bothers me not. For when I write I am not writing for you, but for myself. Both of you actors on the stage I use to attack and doubt myself, why else would I come to post so earnestly if not to welcome someone to tear down what I have built up? How could I post in the fashion that I do and not expect someone to mock me for this sincerity? Neither of you have succeed in doing anything of that kind unfortunately, which is fine, but not ideal since it fails to lead me to regret, pain, or suffering. So try harder or I shall fire you both!

>>231089
Psychology is much broader field than how you define it. Once again, we are arguing over words and once again you choose a limited definition that suits you. It's simply the "study of the mind" in the most broadest sense.

Psychology is not a medical field and its primary concern isn't treating illnesses. And it's also not the study of the majority of minds, since there's a branch called Abnormal psychology which studies non-typical minds such as yourself. And no, "abnormal" is not a normative judgment but a descriptive one, before you catch me in another definition trap. You yourself admitted to being on the "extremities" and one could agree that such lovely and unique personalities like yourself are quite rare and interesting to observe and study without necessarily judging it as "bad" or "unwanted".

Perhaps you are confusing it with psychiatry, a medical specialization for which you need an MD to practice. The majority of therapists don't have an MD and also don't necessarily practice "scientific" and evidence-based therapies and some of them lean towards even spiritual practices. You're basically doing what you often accuse others, putting it into a box, misrepresenting it so that it can be attacked more easily, and there's a word for that kind of debate strategy I'm sure.

Also, your beloved Nietzsche was a psychologist par excellence. What else would you call "ressentiment" but a psychological concept? Will you condemn him for thinking that he could make a hypothesis about other people's moral behavior? Ah, but that was different, because he didn't call himself a psychologist and wasn't on APA's payroll and wasn't Jewish.

I could have probably circumvented your entire autism if I simply talked about philosophizing about the mind in order to alleviate suffering from mental states, because "psychology" is simply a loaded term for you.

>The second psychology made "treatments" it stopped being philosophy since it stopped questioning for truth.

What an absurd statement. Did your precious philosophers stop being philosophers after making a conclusion based on their current knowledge? Isn't the very foundation of science to make a hypothesis, then continually try to disprove it and then update it? Once again you're either completely ignorant or misrepresenting not only psychology but science as a whole.

>>231093
>Psychology is much broader field than how you define it.
No, it's really not. You are stuck 150+ years in the past thinking that is what psychology is. This is a mature field of "science", it has its answers, theories, and treatments. To you even thinking about yourself for a single second counts as psychology, which is just absurd even 150 years ago. You lack any nuance, clarity, or detail in any judgment you hold; you let anything be anything since a part of something is the same as the whole. To you the universe is one singular thing, static and unchanging; for if one thing comes from another it must be the same. If I were the same as yourself I would state that any question ever asked is philosophy, even that is not enough to compare - I should instead state that thought itself is philosophy. For one thinks during philosophy correct? All parts are equal to the whole correct?

Abnormal psychology that still thinks of the abnormal as having "disorders", still looking for TREATMENT. At this point I can only assume you are some sort of baboon who is intentionally lacking comprehension for the sake of argument. You do not understand psychology, its entire basis is that of a medical science. I am not confusing psychiatry for psychology, read what I write instead of posting useless sentences. Psychiatry is psychology, even if you wish it wasn't; every single thought of psychiatry stems from psychology. It is in a literal sense an applied psychology. To deny this is to deny honest conversation, you will have admitted that you are not just an idiot, but a dishonest idiot.

>talked about philosophizing about the mind
Yes, words have meaning to me and everyone else besides you. Conversation does not function otherwise. Most people are not extreme monist etymologists who believe all words stem from the same word, so that every word really means the same thing. You could have also side stepped this issue by using a capital "Psychology" which a description of "150 year old philosophy that birthed psychology.".

>What an absurd statement
Is self help philosophy? That is the equivalent of what you are suggesting.

>>231105
Either you're willfully practicing dishonest debate tactics or you're completely incapable of seeing the forest from the trees. Either way, I think this should be the end of the exchange since we cannot even agree on the definitions of the words we are using.

Even if you can make the honest point that I am using the word "psychology" incorrectly, I've clearly defined it as the equivalent to "study of the mind" multiple times but you've deliberately rejected it because it's not aligned to some supposedly more common usage of it. Same thing with "diagnosis", deliberately pushing a definition that implies an illness in the medical sense. There is nothing wrong with using alternative definitions as long as you provide them and being needlessly pedantic about that shit is clearly a dishonest debate tactic.

Can you even salvage one argument from your entire history of replies to me that wasn't bickering about semantics and definitions that put words in my mouth and beliefs in my head? Most of my replies are hopelessly trying to soothe your autism by using different words and phrases to say the same essential thing.

Here are my points, again, written very carefully so that I don't land on your autistic word traps:
(1) it is possible and valuable to study the mind
(2) some people experience suffering due to unwanted mental states
(3) other people invented various tools to help by studying the mind
(4) these tools were mostly useless or made things worse
(5) people from (2) are still suffering and this a problem (to them)
(6) wouldn't it be cool if we could invent better tools instead of just ignoring their problem?
(7) perhaps that could be done by knowing which tools already failed and studying the mind better

If you go full autismo again, I swear, I will find you in whatever little shithole country and family has birthed you and torture you to death so that you may experience the same agony again and again in the eternal return forever.

>>231091
10/10 trolling, I give it to you, wizkid.

>>231106
>I've clearly defined it
>bickering about semantics and definitions
You have not even fully defined it because while I suggested a capital Psychology, you never actually did so with your own definition. I'm not surprised by that, since you refuse to accept even the most basic and common idea that psychology is a medical science based on TREATMENT. You act as though I started the word games, when this only began because you attacked my stance on psychology with smug statements; that I reject psychology yet also also use it hypocritically. When I question these statement such as if your definition is really what psychology means, you cry out and act as if I play word games. Yet it is you who has given psychology new definitions and changed what it is to begin with. It is obvious why you did so, since if psychology is so vast that it covers even the most basic forms about thought on oneself there is nothing else that is NOT psychology. You intentionally lack nuance, clarity, or depth in your definitions because it suits your pathetic gotcha moment, which is the only argument you have ever put forth against my views anyways. You admit psychology makes "diagnosis" yet refuse to accept psychology is a medical science, even though that is what it has been stated to be since even the 1800's when mental illness terms became commonplace. That is the entire reason for the split from philosophy, to define itself as separate, as a science, and as a medical practice.

Since you wish to run away (again) from the hole you dug yourself into, I shall accept your concession and address your "points"

0) Your only argument really is that psychology = good, everything else comes afterwards to defend that statement.
1) This is the exact same thing we have been discussing before. The only "autistic word trap" is the one you set up here for your gotcha moment, since you state even "introspection" (merely thinking of oneself in any fashion) is not even a part but IS psychology. This is because you don't know the history of psychology, that introspection was thrown out during the very first formative years roughly 150 years ago with the creation of behaviorism. That is without even mentioning the modern acceptance of brain chemicals and the unconscious, showing that truly introspection is no longer thought of as psychology. You would be hard pressed to find another person willing to admit introspection is a part of psychology, let alone admitting that it IS psychology.
2/5) Define "unwanted mental states". Unwanted for what reason and how could a mental state be "unwanted"? Let us cut to the chase shall we, you just mean to say "depression make me sad which slows my ability to slave for society, thus it is bad, I need a holy man to splash his holy water on me to free me from these demons.". This has nothing to do with what I write, if the mental state is """unwanted""" then they are The Majority. Tell them to make friends, have a career, have sex, love someone, be loved, and then they will be "happy". I don't care what The Majority thinks or feels; we are not the same being and I have no plans to "treat" their "illness". I write to those whom recognize that they don't enjoy life, yet because of Majority propaganda have not realized there is nothing wrong with that. That there is nothing there to "fix" or "cure".
3) They developed ways to destroy the individual of the extremities, that much I will admit.
4) There was no problem to begin with, your priests created the invisible demons in order to exorcise it in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit of Jung.
6/7) No, because there is nothing wrong with depression unless you hold the same values as The Majority.

You fail to attack or even realize what my main arguments are, because you never came to this thread to understand what I write, but rather to argue for and defend your religion. Unhappiness is unhappiness, there is nothing innately wrong with it. The only way you believe that there is, is if you value the same things as The Majority does. In which case I suggest "psychological treatment" of sex, friendship, lawn mowing, gossiping, and all the rest of the herd mentality.

>you may experience the same agony again and again in the eternal return forever.
Come then, I look forward to it! So too will you lose this argument over and over again. So on forever and ever. Same time, same place as always.

>>231114
A quick and effortless surrender, I shall accept that. Don't worry you can always forget this happened and escape from it via masturbation, maybe you even get off on this sort of thing.

>>231145
I see that you're still using your own definitions. Either substitute everything you've said with "study of the mind" or admit your dishonest tactics of using loaded terms. I can see that at one point in the thread, someone said that he was a "hedonist", and he too fell into your autistic word trap because it so happens that one can mean a specific ideology of hedonism from a specific philosopher X that implies A, B and C beliefs, none of which the person actually said they believe, but nonetheless, you are either incapable of accepting a more general definition which the person clarifies or you're deliberately using a pseudo-strawman tactic, very cleverly injecting specific meaning that can easily be torn down by your side, even more so since your opponent doesn't wish to waste time defending views he doesn't have. And so, you proclaim a win by frustrating your opponent until he quits, not by outwitting him in an argument, but by acting in bad faith.

If I could make an analogy for this tactic, it is like a child, scoring touchdowns in a game of soccer, because everyone said they were playing "football". Even after they explain the rules, you are insistent on scoring touchdowns and carrying the ball with your hands, because it so happens that there is an American usage of the word that implies other rules.

Truly you have won. I not only wasted my own time "debating" with a troll, but many times considered that you were being genuine albeit pedantic. 10/10 I guess, made me reply several times.

>>231147
You yourself loaded "psychology" when you used the word as an attack itself. Thus you haven't made a proper argument to justify my doing either of what you suggest I should. You to this moment refuse to discuss what psychology actually is, instead preferring a definition that doesn't even exist in dictionary form, let alone in generally accepted terms

psychology
noun [ U ]
uk
/saɪˈkɒl.ə.dʒi/ us
/saɪˈkɑː.lə.dʒi/
B2
the ->scientific<- study of the way the human mind works and how it influences ->behaviour<-, or the influence of a ->particular person's character on their behaviour<- :

psychology noun
psy·​chol·​o·​gy | \ sī-ˈkä-lə-jē
\
plural psychologies
Definition of psychology

1 : the ->science<- of mind and ->behavior<-

psychology
Pronunciation /sʌɪˈkɒlədʒi/
noun

1mass noun The ->scientific<-, study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting ->behaviour<- in a given context.

I repeat myself "you don't know the history of psychology, that introspection was thrown out during the very first formative years roughly 150 years ago with the creation of behaviorism.". you deny that psychology is a science and deny that it is more than just a "study of the mind" because you don't accept behaviorism despite that being the core of psychology itself. You are stuck 150+ years in the past, mistake philosophy as psychology, deny basic views held by psychology, ignore what psychotherapy means, what therapy itself means, think a part is equal to the whole, are an extreme monist etymologist, do not know the history of psychology despite being stuck in the past, and overall have no idea about anything really.

>Truly you have won.
I know, I won after you second post in this thread since you wouldn't give up a poorly conceived gotcha. You let that one statement be the anchor that dragged you down under to the sea floor. This entire series of posts is just me dancing on your shallow "arguments" while you attempt to save face and fail at that. This is shown to be true because even now you never dare to even touch my core view that nothing in depression is innately wrong unless you hold normalcattle views. Even after I addressed your list of "points" you didn't even bother to reply to them since you know what you came here for. You only came here to preach the gospels of psychology, so that the believers would not turn away from your sacred and untouchable holy of all holies.

>>231153
All of these definitions are pretty general and I would gladly accept them. Behaviorism is just a particular approach to psychology ("studying the mind"), one that reduces everything to observable behavior, because it is more easily measurable. Alongside psychopharmacology, they are the dominant views in psychology and psychiatric treatment. But you can't reduce the entire field to only those particular ideologies, nor can you ascribe their beliefs to me in good faith.

Consider the chart I posted and variety of approaches there, all of which are practiced in some form today. My first reply to you was pretty clear that I do not subscribe to any particular ideology apart from the perspective that there is value in studying the mind in order to alleviate suffering. Whether the DSM defines a disorder called XYZ, doesn't change the fact that some people experience unwanted mental states and suffer. By unwanted, I mean unwanted by the person. When you put your hand over the flame, you experience pain but it is enough to move away your arm to cease suffering needlessly. But what can one do if one experiences chronic anxiety, depressive feelings and so on? You said one should "introspect" and googling "introspection define" brings about one definition: "the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes". But then you said that you mean, thinking about yourself in any manner, only to avoid any mention of observing your own mental state because it would be the first step in admitting that there is value in studying the mind.

I am aware that "introspection" was indeed thrown out as a tool because of its "unscientific" and unreliable nature. But if you go to a therapist, he often bases his entire diagn- err, analysis of the problem based on your self-report of your own mental state and behavior. "I did this and this happened and I felt this because of this", not exactly an expert analysis but the client is clearly engaging in psychology ("studying his own mind"), albeit in a basic form. Then the person, out of his own volition might create a hypothesis about what he feels and why, and he doesn't need a doctor or a therapist to tell him what he feels. And then he might choose to verify it, "if I stop doing this, will that help", creating an experiment and ending up "helping himself" through insight into the workings of his own mind.

Depending on which type of therapist you go to, you'll get a psychoanalytic hypothesis, a cognitive hypothesis, a behavioral hypothesis, or you might not even get any hypothesis when it comes to Carl Rogers' approach which takes a non-counter-acting stance and isn't focused on treating symptoms in the traditional sense.

All I said at the beginning was that we need better tools since all of these approaches have failed to truly change people and alleviate their suffering.

I will leave you with a single webpage, a list of all known types of therapy out there. Truly, there is no consensus in psychotherapy, only "too big to fail" ideologies like CBT or pharma, which you have chosen to use as target for your attack and I would probably join you in that attack if you didn't also choose to ascribe those views to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_psychotherapies

>>231155
>I would gladly accept them
No you wouldn't, because you deny behaviorism and that psychology is a science. You prefer "study of the mind" because that is so vast and encompassing that you can use it for your worthless gotcha statement.

>google definitions
You fucking retard, what are you doing? Can't even look at dictionary definitions correctly? Or was it that they didn't tell you what you wanted to hear?

Merriam-Webster
introspection noun
in·​tro·​spec·​tion | \ ˌin-trə-ˈspek-shən
Definition of introspection
a reflective looking inward : an examination of one's own thoughts and feelings

Cambridge
introspection
/ˌɪn.trəˈspek.ʃən/ us
/ˌɪn.trəˈspek.ʃən/
examination of and attention to your own ideas, thoughts, and feelings:

Oxford
introspection
/ˌɪntrəˈspekʃn/
​the careful examination of your own thoughts, feelings and reasons for behaving in a particular way

>I am aware that "introspection" was indeed thrown out
You are aware? So you were aware while you brought it up as a defense of psychology? In other words you were aware that you intentionally brought up a useless argument solely for the purpose of attempting to fool me? Oh great anon who preaches of good faith and will, when push comes to shove will throw away his sacred virtues to save his scripture. Anything for the saints, whom you serve in nothing else but the goodly faith or rather godly faith. Will you now turn to me and say that really you weren't aware that introspection was thrown out 150+years ago? What will you admit to, that you are a liar or an idiot pretending to know more than he does? Alternatively you could admit to both, which personally is what I believe is the core truth of the matter.

You mark "diagn-" as a snarky remark, but ironically only come off as attacking yourself when you do so. Since you state a therapist is making the diagnosis, and a therapist deals with what exactly? Therapy. What is therapy? Shall we dance around this once more? You are worried and careful not to admit in any fashion on what psychology is, that of a medical science. Therapy this therapy that, still you refuse to admit to a medical view. That all psychology is based on treatment of illness, you refuse this over and over. TREATMENT my braindead friend. Adamant, stubborn, and obstinate is merely the surface of what I would use to describe you. Anyone else who reads what you write knows that you do believe that psychology is a medical science, but that you won't admit it for the sake of this argument. You are petty and pathetic overall, you created definitions that don't exist yet really deep down accept what I say as the truth of the matter. Lets do this again

Merriam-Webster
psychotherapy noun
psy·​cho·​ther·​a·​py | \ ˌsī-kō-ˈther-ə-pē
Definition of psychotherapy
: treatment of mental or emotional disorder or of related bodily ills by psychological means

Cambridge
psychotherapy
/ˌsaɪ.kəʊˈθer.ə.pi/ us
/ˌsaɪ.koʊˈθer.ə.pi/
the treatment of mental illness by discussing someone's problems with them, instead of using drugs or operations

Oxford
psychotherapy noun
/ˌsaɪkəʊˈθerəpi/
the treatment of mental illness by discussing somebody’s problems with them rather than by giving them drugs


What does this mean? Ah right, that all of psychology including the parts of it that you like or dislike, ALL believe in the single uniting theme that there is mental illness to be CURED. That this is a medical and scientific field, NOT a mere "study of the mind", nor any other idiotic takes you spew forth. Accept that you lost, just say it. "I admit that I lost this argument since I don't understand psychology, philosophy, nor the meaning of words." is all you should really be replying with if I am to be frank. No one will remember or know since you are anonymous. Hell I doubt anyone is even reading this besides yourself. There is no reputation to be lost or gained here, except for your own self-honesty should you continue to lie to both me and yourself.

>>231175
Ah, autistic word traps again. You know, I'd gladly accept defeat if you were competent (or honest?) enough to actually grasp my views and provide sufficient reasoning for me to change them. The only thing you've managed so far has been to put beliefs in my head that I do not have. How could I possibly go on believing what I do if you had managed to turn those beliefs on their head? A good, honest argument dismantling all my beliefs would actually free me from this debate, but each reply you post gives me more reason to endlessly bicker with you because I feel the need to clear my name and clarify my position from your shitty straw man.

What does it matter what is says in the dictionary? I have said what I /BELIEVE/ and this is what you have to argue against, not some alternative meaning that is more common or correct. Words exists to signify meaning and we could very well use "sdakjshdasd" if we provided a definition or a clear description of what the person believes the word means and is trying to signify when using it. Your entire grift is injecting alternative meaning that implies different beliefs that are never explicitly specified. Stop telling me what I believe and actually address what I do.

Here's the first (1st) sentence from wikipedia on Psychotherapy:

Psychotherapy (also psychological therapy or talking therapy) is the use of psychological methods, particularly when based on regular personal interaction with adults, to help a person change behavior and overcome problems in desired ways.

So, I'm not pulling this shit out of my ass, psychotherapy CAN actually be characterized in this general manner and this is what I refer to when I use the word. Your alternative definitions that imply different beliefs matter fuck all and is clearly a retarded debate tactic. Again, try arguing against my actual beliefs, you cowardly dishonest piece of trash.

How many times do I need to demonstrate this to you before you take your own advice and introspect? At this point, I don't even care about "winning" because we're not even playing the same game. Just holding up a mirror so I can trigger some self-reflection in you.

>>231176
>wikipedia
Google definitions and wikipedia, a true internet academic. Is this your own attempt at self mockery or are you merely too retarded to notice? As for what you "/believe/", it makes no difference since you call upon what others /believe/ rather than your own knowledge. You are a clergyman who regurgitates scripture from the bible of psychology (poorly admittedly). What beliefs do you even have to be dismantled? The only thing you have presented is that psychology is a definition that doesn't exist in dictionary or general terms, you then used this non existent definition to smugly suggest that I reject psychology yet use psychology. That is your only "belief", truly you have done nothing else. Even your pathetic Wikipedia article agrees with me if you were honest enough to quote it properly to at least the second sentence "to help a person change ->behavior<- and overcome problems in desired ways. Psychotherapy ————-→aims to improve an individual's well-being and mental health←———-, to resolve or mitigate troublesome behaviors, beliefs, compulsions, thoughts, or emotions, and to improve relationships and social skills." in other words "to treat a person's wrong behavior stemming from mental wrongthink.". Since the very beginning of psychology it has been solely focused on the curing of mental illness.

Since you believe Wikipedia to be a worthy source let us take a look at it. Why whats this? Wikipedia even has a definition section that you were too incompetent to notice (lets be truthful, you intentionally missed it)? I shall arrow important words since you seem too retarded to even read the things you take as a source.

>The term psychotherapy is derived from Ancient Greek psyche (ψυχή meaning "breath; spirit; soul") and ——-→therapeia (θεραπεία "healing; ->medical<- treatment")←——–. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it now as "The —→treatment←—— of disorders of the mind or personality by psychological methods…", however, in earlier use it denoted the ——→treatment←——— of disease through hypnotic suggestion.[2]
Wait so even etymology definition of psychology agrees with me? Oh there is more!

>"The American Psychological Association adopted … a definition developed by John C. Norcross: "Psychotherapy is the informed and intentional application of ———-→clinical methods←——– and interpersonal stances derived from established psychological principles for the purpose of ->assisting people<- to ->modify their behaviors, cognitions, emotions, and/or other personal characteristics in directions that the participants deem desirable<-".[3][4] Influential editions of a work by psychiatrist Jerome Frank defined psychotherapy as a ->healing <- relationship using socially authorized methods in a series of contacts primarily involving words, acts and rituals—regarded as forms of persuasion and rhetoric.[5]
Seems again to agree that TREATMENT is what psychologists are focused on

>Historically, psychotherapy has sometimes meant "interpretative" (i.e. Freudian) methods, namely psychoanalysis, in contrast with other methods to SUGOI————→treat←———–SUGOI psychiatric disorders such as behavior modification.[9]
Even 100+ years ago psychologists agree with my definition? Woah!

>you know, I'd gladly accept defeat
You already did once, I'm just waiting for the second time you run away again. You have now sourced an article that also refuted youself, how many consecutive loses will you sustain before you run away(again) or admit defeat? Deep down you know you are only here to protect your flimsy ego which refuses to admit truth to itself. What next will you attempt? Every dictionary, article, search engine, professional, etymologists, the entire world is against you and in favor of myself. This would be heroic, except your only cause is to a definition which doesn't exist. I could not possibly call such a petty task heroic, regardless rather than courage it would be boldness anyways, because you are to stupid to even recognize how idiotic you truly are.

>>231195
Let's try something else.

What exactly did you mean by this? And don't use vague flowery prose but be clear about your method.

>It is clear to myself that negative thoughts and feelings are what causes one to question oneself, to doubt ones actions, to reflect on things, to introspect, to truly and utterly change if you would only listen to it.

I won't imply anything from this, I'll just ask a bunch of questions:
(1) What exactly are negative thoughts and feelings?
(2) Do they contribute to your suffering and why?
(3) What causes negative thoughts and feelings?
(4) How exactly do you "introspect" and how does that help you change?
(5) What exactly are you changing about yourself?
(6) After "changing", do the negative thoughts and feelings go away, at least temporarily?
(7) Is the successful end result of this process essentially alleviating your own suffering?

Now try to answering without using any psychological or other loaded terms or even implying any kind of alignment with mainstream psychotherapeutic methods. If you successfully walk this minefield, I will gracefully accept defeat and leave this thread in shame.

>>231202
>Let's try something else.
Well of course the man who loses wishes to flee from one topic to another as quickly as possible, all without an admittance of defeat. This is of course the most obvious example of deflection possible, when cornered you attempt to change direction again. Address my post properly, I would prefer a reply of "I admit that I lost this argument since I don't understand psychology, philosophy, nor the meaning of words." but anything similar would do. If you can honestly admit you were wrong I shall honestly answer your long list of worthless questions that are just a sad attempt to run from the main argument.

I do expect another worthless reply from you on how I am not honest for addressing your list of questions, since recently you seem to just copy my attacks on you and then regurgitate them with a few words changed. However it is very clear that you are now running away since you were so moronic that you refuted yourself. It is a very embarrassing thing to do what you have done, but you must come to terms with it. As simple "yes, I was wrong about everything" would do. Alternatively you could just say "this is my last reply" again so as to avoid a formal concession of defeat.

>>231206
Sorry, I lost. I won't argue with you ever again.

>>231207
Since you have honestly and in god faith admitted to yourself being wrong, you should now be able to say what psychology is truthfully. So tell me what it is!

>>231206
No, you said the issue was that I was wrongly characterizing your method as relying on psychological insight and being psychotherapeutic in nature because there's all these definitions that imply specific beliefs. But the problem is that you're so deliberately vague about your "method" that no one in this thread actually knows what you believe. Since we're at a clear deadlock and I can't seem to use words correctly to say what I believe, here's your chance to explain yourself, to clarify the quoted statement. Who knows, maybe I am indeed mistaken and your super duper cool Method™ has absolutely nothing to do with psychological insight or has the same goals as psychotherapy.

Stop with the autistic word games and actually write down what you believe.

>>231209
But my dear anon it was you whom started the "word games" via snarky statements and self definitions. You even admit to bringing up factually irrelevant terms like "introspection", and admit you also aware it was irrelevant, but merely hoped I would fall for your trap. It was only when you lost these word games and I did not fall for your obvious traps that you became frustrated and upset, wishing to run away like you do so now. First you said you would not reply again, yet read my posts as I predicted and then came to reply again anyways; next you admit you lost and will never argue with me again, yet came back to argue instantly. You regurgitate my attacks on your lack of good faith and honesty, yet cannot even honestly admit that psychology is a medical science based on treatment of mental illness. Despite every dictionary, article, learned professional, etymologist, etc disagreeing with you. Face it, you aren't smart enough to dance directly with me as you try to, as proven by the above and the rest of our comments; and you aren't humble enough to act in good faith so as to understand what I speak on as proven by your snarky comments, intentional traps, and refusal to admit any wrong. You actively refute yourself (with Wikipedia of all things), and then as any coward does, runs away from facing his own actions.

Until you admit that you were wrong, then you are proven to be acting in bad faith so as to defend your blessed church instead of attempting conversation.

>>231214
If it isn't clear, >>231207 isn't my post. I know you are petty enough that you would literally take any chance to "win" even through dishonest tactics so it wouldn't surprise me if you made the comment yourself.

It seems you have no intention of clarifying your words because you would easily contradict your entire posting history in this thread. You'd have to jump through an entire minefield, somehow avoid using any psychological language or concepts, avoid referring to your mental state as a problem or admitting that changing your own behavior is a solution to that problem. If your method was truly something that didn't rely on psychological insight and didn't result in alleviating mental suffering, then you would be able to clearly describe it. The only way you can assert the opposite is by running away from actually writing down what you believe.

>You even admit to bringing up factually irrelevant terms like "introspection", and admit you also aware it was irrelevant, but merely hoped I would fall for your trap.

Wrong. Even by your own definitions, introspection includes examining your own mental state i.e. thoughts and feelings. Also, you admit that it was used as tool for studying the mind - the fact that is no longer considered useful by the dominant movements in psychology (like behaviorism) doesn't make it any less of a psychological tool. I've also given you examples how it's used in therapy since the therapist cannot read your mind, he has to base his analysis on your own self-report gained through - /introspection/.

Your first step to dealing with negative thoughts and feelings was to examine them, but then you neglect to offer any details because you would unwillingly be describing a psychological theory, a hypothesis about your own mind and behavior and the possible ways to deal with them.

>psychology is a medical science based on treatment of mental illness

Nope. Psychology is much broader than behaviorism and psychiatry. What would you call positive psychology which doesn't focus at all on psychological problems but seeks to understand what helps people thrive in the world?

Also, look at pic related. This time I used a "proper" dictionary and there's at least 3 specific definitions. One could refer to the "science of mind and behavior", one could refer to some particular psychology of a individual or a group, and one could refer to any kind of psychological theory. Is Jung and Freud psychology? No, guess it isn't since they aren't relevant since behaviorism (never mind that they're still taught and their respective therapies are still practiced in their original form).

You keep insisting that psychology specifically means the current dominant view, when behaviorism is literally just /one approach/ out of many to the "science of mind and behavior", you absolute revolting troll.

As far as the psychotherapy definition goes, I'll admit that many definitions include "disorder" and "illness" which implies a specific belief system, yet if you had any actual knowledge of the field and opened the list of psychotherapies, you'd see there's so much diversity that many therapies don't refer to psychological problems as disorder or an illness or even a problem per se. So, the definition just reflects the dominant view in psychotherapy, the ones that are too big to fail at this point.

Consider reading Rogers' "On Becoming A Person" which will break your preconception of psychotherapy. But I'm guessing that's too much work for you and your goal was never to really understand my perspective in the first place.

Also, you are right, I am repeating myself since that is what people do when they are misrepresented, they clarify what they mean, again and again until the "obtuse" opponent finally gets it or they give up out of frustration. I won't make that mistake again so if you fail to respond in good faith, I won't continue this exchange.

>>231219
I would take any chance to win yet I replied to that post in a way that restarts the conversation? Think what you will, but I did not make that post. Also what is this "method" do you keep bringing up? You say you don't know what it is, that I have never spoken on it, yet keep asking to hear it despite my apparent lack of mentioning of this method that only you know of. You refute yourself within the same sentence, that I should speak of a thing I've never spoken on, you know of this thing I never spoke on, and it is my idea despite me never mentioning this thing?

>This time I used a "proper" dictionary and there's at least 3 specific definitions
Have your eyes began to rot? All three definitions disagree with you. All three mention either behavior and science both of which you deny. Also you couldn't bother to see the other two dictionaries despite me offering you the same honor?

Cambridge
psychology noun [ U ]
/saɪˈkɒl.ə.dʒi/ us
the ->scientific<- study of the way the human mind works and how it influences ->behaviour<-, or the influence of a particular person's character on their ->behaviour<- :

Oxford
psychology noun
/saɪˈkɒlədʒi/
the ->scientific<- study of the mind and how it influences ->behaviour<

Marriam Webster
psychology noun
psy·​chol·​o·​gy | \ sī-ˈkä-lə-jē
1 : the ->science<- of mind and ->behavior<-,
2a : the mental or ->behavioral<- characteristics of an individual or group
b : the study of mind and ->behavior<- in relation to a particular field of knowledge or activity

All three including the one you linked mention behavior and science, you have only succeeded in refuting yourself (again). At this point I could just let you argue with yourself and I would win automatically after you refuted every point you bring up within the same post. It is quite a laugh to read I must admit.

>Wrong.
So now you flip back introspection being irrelevant? You admitted it was thrown out and it is unscientific, now I am suppose to allow you to turn back time as you see fit? You shape-shifter, you. Willing to say anything and change any view for the sake of an argument eh?

>positive psychology
>Is Jung and Freud psychology?
All of these still believe in mental illness and "therapy"(treatment) of some kind. You will attempt to say that positive psychology does not, but it does and if you argue against this you shall surely lose (positive psychotherapy). ALL psychology is based on there being mental illness and a treatment to that mental illness. For 150 years it has been the same, that is the core of psychology. You also agree with this since you cannot help yourself but use "therapy" and "psychotherapy" over and over again. If you were in another thread vs another poster you would admit that psychology is a medical science in a heartbeat. The problem for you occurred when I attacked that core of psychology, you cannot allow the honor of your holy texts and saintly priests to be sullied. So you devolved into the very word games you accuse me of implementing.

> yet if you had any actual knowledge of the field
How convenient! I should just need to read the scriptures of your prophets in order to "truly understand" your special and infallible denomination of christi- sorry psychology! Forget the argument you say, ignore the fact that psychotherapy means what it means. Merely take a "leap of faith" and accept Jung into your heart! Praise be to Freud, may his psychoanalysis wash away the sins of your past. Be welcomed into the heaven of believers, where mental illness can no longer reach. Ask and ye shall receive your medication, for God is kind and fair to those who worship him with psychology. Wondrous!

>I won't continue this exchange.
Once a coward, always a coward. Leave and never return o preacher of psychology, before you begin to doubt your unquestioning faith to your religious duties.

>>231230
>Also what is this "method" do you keep bringing up?

I quoted the exact thing you fucking mong. You were indeed pretty vague and didn't offer any real solution to the thread, but this is the one quote that you yourself offered when probed about what you meant by "accepting depression" -> I take it as a sign that I should change myself. Run away from the real conversation again coward. Keep dodging.

>All three mention either behavior and science both of which you deny.

Oh god, it's worse than I thought. Initially I thought you were just maliciously being obtuse, but actually you're just a retard that has no idea what he's talking about. The definition "the scientific study of the mind and how it influences behaviour" does NOT IMPLY any kind of belief system, merely the object of study. Behaviorism does indeed study behavior, as well as any other psychological approach, but it differs in the methodology because BEHAVIOR is the only thing considered worthy of study. What you claim is that "introspection" is no longer a psychological tool because it was thrown out by the behaviorist, when it fact, it's being used today in many psychological studies and in practice of psychotherapy. They still measure a person's subjective feelings through self-report questionnaires. I did not reject either "science" or the "behavior" part of the definition, you absolute moron. I rejected the notion that psychology can only be the current dominant view in the "science" (because you were putting beliefs in my head) and the notion that studying behavior automatically implies behaviorism when it doesn't. Both Freud and Jung used traditionally "unscientific" methods of studying mind and behavior and they are still considered a part of /psychology/. I noticed now that you were highlighting "behavior" because you thought it was some kind of gotcha, that this actually IMPLIES that behaviorism IS EQUIVALENT to the entire field of psychology. Way to prove your complete ignorance and lack of reading comprehension.

>Willing to say anything and change any view for the sake of an argument eh?

It is only the shape in your mind that changes. If you actually had any reading comprehension™ you would realize I've been saying the same thing in 10 different ways since the start in an effort to active some neurons in that monkey brain of yours. It seems you're actually just a low IQ retard using flowery language that cannot understand even a basic line of reasoning and uses tactics reminiscent of someone in kindergarten completely unironically.

>psychology is a medical science

Wrong, retard. Again and again.

>How convenient! I should just need to read the scriptures of your prophets in order to "truly understand" your special and infallible denomination of christi- sorry psychology!

Well, turns out you need to read more than one sentence definitions to understand two gigantic fields like psychology and psychotherapy. Clearly your position in born out of complete ignorance and my words have been wasted on you.

>>231233
>this is the one quote that you yourself offered when probed about what you meant by "accepting depression"
So this is what you define as a method? I wouldn't, but I suppose for someone who believes that merely thinking about some thing is practicing psychology, that a single sentence is a method. So what, will you now state it is psychology what that "method" is? We are right back to where we started you moron. The only dodging going on is you running from the word games you created and lost.

>self-report questionnaires.
I don't remember the definition of introspection being "filling out forms given by others, and then having others judge those answers". Keep trying to flip flop on this, you yourself admitted it was irrelevant and thrown out. It is nonscientific and psychology is a science. Now like with psychology you attempt to create a word so vague and undefined that it encompasses everything. Word games are easy when anything means anything you specifically want!

>I did not reject either "science" or the "behavior"
So now you flip flop on this issue too? You must follow Heraclitus's words, to be always in flux and motion, never staying still for even one second - always becoming rather than being! For if you solidly held any views then you would have to admit you were wrong, can't be wrong if you just change what you think!

>Clearly your position in born out of complete ignorance and my words have been wasted on you.
Your reciting of holy doctrine is lost on me, but not from ignorance, instead from rational thought. Even though I have already read your prophet's verses, you think I have not; because for you psychology is so infallible and perfect that if someone reads them they would automatically agree that it is right! Ye of great faith! Does not Jung, Frued, and the holy spirit teach not to speak with the unbelievers? Freud spoke "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." did he not? Would you sin against the prophets?

>>231238
>So this is what you define as a method?

Lmao, here we go again. Call it whatever you want. It was what you decided to quote when being pressed about how exactly you "accept depression" and why you consider suffering to be good. In reality, beyond being a contrarian, you have no actual insight to offer. The less specific you are about what you believe, the less surface there is for your opponents to target. When asked directly, what do you believe, you simply run away behind empty words and phrases.

>I don't remember the definition of introspection being "filling out forms given by others, and then having others judge those answers".

Another one, eh? A person "examines their own mental state i.e. thoughts, feelings" and that is how these scientists get their data. They do not rely on mind-reading devices, but use introspection as a vital tool for the process. Of course, a behaviorist dislikes such tools and instead observes behavior directly and measures that. Both approaches are /psychology/ and you would know this if you read more than a couple sentences on some online dictionary.

>So now you flip flop on this issue too?

Just another proof of your poor reading comprehension™.

>Even though I have already read your prophet's verses, you think I have not; because for you psychology is so infallible and perfect that if someone reads them they would automatically agree that it is right!

How silly. My initial response provided a chart of my "prophets" which I then immediately discredited. And yet, they are still worth reading? This seems dumbfounding to you since you've likely never read a text without immediately regurgitating its contents or imitating its style. To such people, reading makes them even stupider because they lack critical thinking skills and do not understand that one can turn a bad book into a good book by using it as fuel for the fire of his intellect. Yuck, I'm starting to sound like you. Basically, you can read the works of Freud, Jung, Adler, Ellis, Skinner, Rogers, Ecker and while understanding their perspectives, gain some modicum of insight without necessarily agreeing with them and becoming a paddler of their theories. I know that's difficult for you since read Nietzsche last week and he really made an impression on you, but remember to think critically, kiddo :)

>>231241
Well anon you never asked what I believe, another anon did and had no problems with my answers to his specific questions You on the other hand only replied to me in order to argue that psychology is literally infallible. If you were so interested in what I think you wouldn't have immediately sought to attack me with snarky comments, word games, and worthless arguments.

You call introspection a tool used by psychologists, so the psychologist is examining themselves? What does it matter, word have no meaning to yourself so you do not bother to even think of what you write. Keep trying to flip flop on this, you yourself admitted it was irrelevant and thrown out.

>read comprehension
The man who accuses me of saying no one can comprehend me (despite me only accusing you of that, and no one else), now uses it as an excuse in every new post! Hypocrisy my friend, it stops being mockery when you are using it seriously in the way you are. At this point I believe you have used those two words more than myself, hilarious really. Either way you are just scared to admit you hold no firm view on anything and will change it as you see fit so as to win an argument.

>which I then immediately discredited.
>Freud, Jung, Adler, Ellis, Skinner, Rogers, Ecker
So what is it you purpose then? If I am to take what you say serious and think you are being honest (you aren't, you still believe the core of psychology with unwavering faith), then what exactly are you saying? That every single psychologist and theory is wrong, but one should just follow and accept psychology anyways! Wow! Your """method""" is that psychology answers and theories are the most absolute of absolute wrong, yet I should not believe the writers for they are only human, instead I should pray to the holy ghost of psychology; that lord of lords, the king of kings, the god of gods, that Immaterial Psychology! Why, this is exactly what I have been accusing you of this entire thread, that you are a religious fanatic who does not "think critically", but rather asks the nonbelievers to merely "take a leap of faith". You are the same as Kierkegaard, who realized that no logical thought, empirical evidence, or any such thing could truly understand or prove his religion as truth. Just as he did, you have devised a way over it, that of a leap of faith. You admit to it being wrong and absurd are every step, yet come to defend the honor of your cult anyways.

Were you to suggest a book to a friend, when he asks if its worth a read you would say, "its a long list of garbage, but you should read it!". Of course you do not believe such a thing, that would be nonsense. What you really mean to say is "this shall open your heart if you let Jung and the holy spirit awaken your faith". Your religiousness is so ingrained that anyone whom shares skeptic views (like Nietzsche) send you in a frenzy of rage upon even seeing a similar writing style (thank you for that compliment truly). Even if this person holds views far away from what Nietzsche himself proposed. You are the gatekeeper of psychology, whom stands not at the heavenly gate, but at the church's inner sanctuary where the bible of psychology sits. To stop anyone from stepping into that inner sanctuary and reading the bible themselves, that is your real purpose. For if they read from the book, all knowledge of psychology would come to them, and so to they would lose the faith they had let fester in their heart. To allow that would be to allow rational and independent thought, both of which are not tolerated by the clergy.

Many might say I am not being fair to you, that you mean that psychology and really everything that exists as human, is all together wrong; but you seek the Truth regardless of that. Yet this is proven false unfortunately, for never once have you questioned the truth at the base of psychology. The core is infallible to you, it cannot be questioned. You would not dare even for a second to think "is psychology itself wrong?". Not the parts of, nor the men of, but the wholeness that psychology encompasses. The core that connects every idea under its umbrella, that which you will not even bother to acknowledge. For if it does not exist, you do not have to question it, keeping it safe within the inner sanctuary, that place where the high priests let you guard, but never enter. It is less that you cannot think "is psychology itself wrong?", but that you will not think "what is psychology?" since that would require you to open the door into that inner sanctuary. An intellectual coward is what the core of your being truly is, never will you think beyond religious dogma and faith.

>>230820

I often speak about "warp wanings", yet no one but little seems to have tried them at long term.

The thing is, they look upon you as if you were them, so they know nothing about the cloud inside the brain. Just to be sure we don't lose a little chance of stopping things going from bad to worse, warp wanings must be at hand for whoever has a lil chance with them

>fasting often, like once a month or two months (*)
>if you can't do water fasting for more than 3 days (which is the caution when starting) use honey: you may last more than a week with honey and water (*)
>use colon irrigations while fasting, learn about them, for this improves the cleansing a lot (*)
>try eating and living caring about your ayurvedic type
>having an almost mucusless diet (knowing that cereals are the most mucus producers and so milk, etc…)
>chewing foods a lot (fletcherism)
>people often forgets to brush their teeth, also
>learn about the oil pulling method (coconut oil serves better than anyone for this)
>if ever crying, drink your own tears for it is therapeutical
>learn about trophology: why some types of food must not be mixed with some others
>intermitent fasting can be carried out while not fasting in serious way, it allows you to recover while still doing a bit of cleansing
>sport cannot be done while warped, but anything that makes you sweat helps with detox, avoid air-conditioning
>do not expect results within less than a year, being constant…
>learn about herbal remedies intended to purge one single organ (kidneys, lungs, liver) for you may need them fresh
>homeopathy is not naturopathy, the first one is weak and almost theoric
>when the body might be severely purged, try holotropic breathwork (*) since not every warp form is physical (brain-fog, brain-conditions, brain-whatever)

* = these are the tough ones, the others are complementary

Self-improvement comes naturally only when warp has been removed and depending on how much it is remaining.

Warp levels (as you may know) can vary from a wizard to another,

What is warp? Every fog, taint, phlegm or sickening substance/influence that causes mind and body to work wrecked.
It is the life-battle of every wiz, yet wizzies are affected in ways that resemble a curse more than a mere sickness. That's why normanimprovekeks won't work on us

>>231299
What are you self-improving towards?

>>231297
Well, it's pretty clear now that you have no idea what I'm talking about or still feigning ignorance. I mean, what am I even supposed to say to this?

>to argue that psychology is literally infallible

Clearly I've never made this silly proposition once. You have to be seriously mentally impaired or so biased emotionally towards words like "psychology" that you simply project certain beliefs on people.

>If you were so interested in what I think you wouldn't have immediately sought to attack me with snarky comments, word games, and worthless arguments.

Oh boy, the level of self-awareness on this specimen…

>You call introspection a tool used by psychologists, so the psychologist is examining themselves?

Cool word game, but consider this wikipedia article and this specific section. Read till the end and tell me what you think. Particularly the last two sentences.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection#Historical_misconceptions

>That every single psychologist and theory is wrong, but one should just follow and accept psychology anyways!

Psychology simply implies an object of study i.e. the mind and its influence on behavior, but doesn't imply any actual beliefs. You could say that psychology is valuable i.e. studying that particular object is valuable without accepting any particular psychological theory. It is not like mathematics where this always implies certain beliefs like 1+1=2 and the entire thing falls apart if you question that. When I accused you of practicing psychology, I simply meant that you, at least implicitly, valued studying the mind and its influence on behavior, which you promptly proved with the quote I call your "method" since it is the only non-vague thing you've posted in the entire thread.

I think the problem is that when I say "I value psychology" that this means I value X, Y, Z theory and consider them correct, when I'm really using psychology in the general sense of "studying the mind and its influences on behavior" and as such I consider it a valuable tool. This is the most charitable interpretation of your position I can give you.

When I recommended these books, I gave a disclaimer, that not a single one of them contained an entirely true answer, but that there was still worth in reading them. There is no "leap of faith" because I never asked anyone to accept any particular theory or approach, but simply provided material one can ponder and enrich his own thought. Your entire argument is off and has no basis in reality, from which I can only conclude ignorance or maliciousness or perhaps that an evil demon put some colored glasses on you so you are incapable of seeing reality.

>Were you to suggest a book to a friend

Consider if a friend approached me, called Oh-Pee, "oh anon, can you help me? I've been having this terrible anxiety and depression, what am I to do?" And then in an effort to be a good friend, I considered what the nature of this problem could be or if it indeed was a problem. Hmm, I don't know Oh-Pee, I am familiar that many others suffer like you, but I have no ready made solution for you. Perhaps the only thing I can offer is these selected works that can provide some insight into the nature of your problem but I also have evidence that their methods aren't really effective. The only thing I can say for sure is that one should study this problem further, to gain insight into the mind and its influences on behavior, this would indeed be a worthy goal, don't you think? The people have come to call this venture "psychology" but the bloody bastards cannot even agree if there is a mind at all worth studying! On your path you will meet many theories that seem plausible on the surface, but do not fall into the trap of believing an established author, aim to verify their theories through your personal experimentation and critical thinking. I know of one "psychologist" who detests the label, yet he still sees value in studying the mind. Last time I saw him, I mentioned your problem and he gave me his own theory, that you really didn't have a problem at all! I said, but the man clearly suffers, I am afraid he might consider the rope in his current state. Then so be it, he said, perhaps we should let what is weak fall? If he had any worth to him, he would take his negative thoughts and feelings as a sign that he should introspect, to self-reflect, to bloody well change himself truly if he would only listen. I didn't know what to make of his method, but it sure sounded "psychological" in nature. The man admitted he used to suffer from similar problems, but that he simply accepted them. I wanted to probe further at what he meant, but he began to get more agitated and began accusing me of the darnedest things, he kept putting beliefs in my head that I simply let the ol' fool be. Wow, what a silly man, said Oh-Pee. To accept this terrible state of my mind is unthinkable to me and I've tried for so long to ignore it. You are right, anon, there is no clever shortcut, we must simply delve deeper into the nature of this problem and this "psychology" you talk about might offer some insight. What could be the nature of my illness, anon? Oh-pee, I cannot say, it depends on which perspective you read. The holy book of the psychiatrists is called the "DSM" and it categorizes illnesses like a doctor, yet there is no evidence that there even exists discrete illnesses, simply clustered symptoms that one can group based on statistical data. It seems like many that suffer like you, fall into similar patterns of behavior and yet each human has his own distinct twist on it! Their main tools for dealing with problems like yours are psychopharmacological in nature, yet I have reviewed the evidence and statistically the amount of people that get better equals the outcome of much simpler methods like talking about the problem. You know, Oh-Pee, it seems that all these methods produce the equivalent outcome, even the ones that supposedly do opposite things! Oh, how can that be, anon? That is truly peculiar. Could it be that they all do the same thing, operate under the same hidden mechanism? Perhaps, I said, that's the optimistic interpretation, that all have won and deserve prizes, they call it the Dodo bird verdict. And yet, I believe the opposite, it seems all of them have lost. That's terrible, anon! What am I to do? It is a difficult problem, Oh-Pee, and many great minds have failed to deal with it properly. Their tools might have failed, but the problems still seemingly remains, so one can only hope to develop better tools and theories or just accept defeat and resignation. Oh anon, I don't want to end up like that old man you were talking about, to convince myself that this is what life should be, a bloody endurance game. Thank you talking to me friend, I feel a bit better knowing that someone else acknowledges that the problem exists, that it's a part of my experience that contributes to my suffering.

>How do I get out of this?
>Can we help each other here?
You're posting on a website that explicitly, in the rules, disallows people from helping you.

It's no coincidence that this community has chosen for itself as the symbolic encapsulation of the ethos of the website the archetypal symbol for the self; the wise old man; the wizard.

What you all need is wise masculine council on the nature of being itself.

Something that the rules, and culture of this website, do not allow. Yet every single post is a crying, a wailing, a blithely sardonic weeping at your own circumstances.

What questions do you have for me? The man who knows where it is you need to look?

>>231307
>Clearly I've never made this silly proposition once
Oh but you did, it's right there in your second post. I even mentioned it a few times.You change what you think and now forget what you thought, always becoming never being!

>consider this wikipedia article
A Wikipedia article! Again! Have you lost faith in your own ability to argue, instead offering wikipedia of all things? You refer to it so much I begin to doubt if you have read anything at all besides wikipedia articles. A true internet academic you are. Regardless of what it says, it has no relation on this conversation because you already admitted yourself that it was irrelevant and thrown out. Keep trying to flip flop on this.

>Psychology simply implies an object of study
Wrong, we already went over this. you keep running away time and time again, forgetting that it is a SCIENCE of the mind and BEHAVIOR. You pretend that you now accept both of these words (science and behavior) but really keep carrying on with the exact same argument. Just introspection itself equals psychology to you, not a part, but equals to psychology. That it IS psychology, not a tool or anything else, but that these words are the same thing. You truly and utterly believe introspection=psychology, there being absolutely no reason for a separation of words. This is your "proof", of me using psychology. Yet it is obvious that they are separate words, you only say such things for the very word games you accuse me of. So poor with words you are that you can't even tell the difference between philosophy and psychology, as when you asked to define happiness. You never addressed this because you simply lost this point. You don't understand even the basic meaning and differences between words, so generalized and unclear you have made everything so that anything is everything.

You do ask for a leap of faith, for you suggest that everything in psychology is wrong, yet ask for others to believe in the immaterial goodness of psychology. That despite every answer and theory of psychology being a sham, there is still some sort of magical and immaterial merit to be found. Read Kierkegaard, you and him are one and the same. Both came to the end conclusion of the absurdities of your faith in your respective religions, yet both of you at this end point do not cast off the shackles of dogma; but rather double down on your creed and still continue to practice. You have already given up on psychology, but just don't realize you have. So entrenched are the religious teachings of your clergymen that even if every single one is wrong, you still preach their virtue!

As for your very, very, very long example, you had failed by the second sentence. You did not reply to the OP with your list of certified approved religious texts, but to ME. You goal was never to help OP, nor to understand what I write, I have mentioned this many times. You goal is to protect the inner sanctuary that you dare not even peak into, the very one that I have looked at and attack. The day you have a truthful conversation with me is the day you read that holy bible in the sanctuary. If you could accept that therapy is treatment and that ALL psychology looks to treat what it defines as mental illness, then you have a proper conversation instead of losing word games with someone who is better at them than yourself.

>>231310
>As for your very, very, very long example, you had failed by the second sentence. You did not reply to the OP with your list of certified approved religious texts, but to ME.

This is indeed true. Actually, the whole tale wasn't even a real event! It's crazy how one can use fiction to illustrate a point, oh my dear philosopher! Next you will tell me that Plato's cave is not an actual cave and that there aren't any people tied up watching shadows! How could someone that valued Truth use such obvious lies? Did he not know that the definition of "truth" is actually "that which is not untrue, false".

You failed, old man. Now go back to your acceptance! Why spend more time in a thread about a problem that doesn't even exist according to you? Go play your silly word games somewhere else.

>>231312
And just like that you give up like the coward I called you to be. Your petty claim that I take literal what is figurative is just that, a petty claim. You had set up this fictional story to reflect, condense, and summarize the nonfictional thread, yet failed to do so because in this fictional story you act as if you came here merely attempting to help a friend. As you were some innocent pacifist looking to spread love not war. In other words your story is just a lie that you use to hide behind, a false reality that only exists inside your imaginary world.

Let us be honest here, you are just looking to excuse yourself since you are trapped and have lost all the worthless word games you yourself created. This is how you will flee from this conversation, you shall ignore the majority of my post as you have done, and then use this petty claim to either start a new argument without having to deal with the previous ones you had lost, or to simply run away from all conversation by no longer replying. So leave and never return o saintly preacher of psychology, ye are weak of mind and lack of the courage to continue the fight.

>>231309
>>231311
Typical new age egomaniac you get here all the time. Its ironic isnt it, the same kind of demagogue that succubi would follow seems to be attracted to a place of virgin low status males.

>>231313
>ye are weak of mind and lack of the courage to continue the fight.

And after all that he still chooses to study my mind and give hypothesis about my behavior, oh silly non-psychologist. Next you will tell me that I should change myself, as you have judged that one should engage in different behavior and have a different personality.

Just admit that you have lost and that you don't even know what you believe in.

>>231315
What study of the mind was there? That I read your posts that told me you were fleeing, that I call you a coward for doing so? You are still ignoring my other posts, is this your last resort, to just ignore all previous arguments and then declare you won them despite being the one running away? Well this would be the second time you have done that if that is the case. You turn you back on the fight and sprint away, and then from the other side of town declare that you had won the fight! How pathetic.

>>231316
>What study of the mind was there? That I read your posts that told me you were fleeing, that I call you a coward for doing so?

How curious! You observed someone's writing and then made a hypothesis about his behavior? Were you not asking yourself in that moment: "What mental state would influence such behavior?" and then concluded it was fear and the consequent reaction to that fear that could be called cowardice. And you didn't leave it at that, but saw yourself fit to make a normative judgment on that behavior - cowardice is wrong. Of course, your hypothesis is completely wrong and wasn't based on any actual evidence, as one could leave a debate because of frustration caused by an irritating opponent, but "cowardice" fit your needs much better.

Nonetheless, you were engaging in (bad) psychology as a tool to discredit your opponent as you weren't competent enough to engage in other honest tactics. Tell me more theories about my personality, please, as each stab at me actually proves my point.

>>231318
>his
>your
Are you delusional and think of yourself in third person now? Or have you begin to pretend to be another person so as to avoid all previous conversation? Alternatively the last option is that you are the hedonist anon still upset from before, in which case answer my last reply to you. Either way this LARPing as an unbiased third person actor is very pathetic.

>>231319
It's just a stylistic choice, an analysis of the situation. I wasn't pretending to be someone else, retard. At this point your reading comprehension™ is non-existent. It is as if you are using Google translate or keep hallucinating a different text that suits your needs better.

>>231321
>looking at a situation objectively is now LARPing as a different person

My last sentence was literally "tell me more theories about [[[MY]]] personality…"

>>231322
To be fair I didn't even read that far, since the beginning neither looks to address our previous arguments and is LARPing as another person instead of just being yourself. When will you tackle those arguments you ran from anon? Or will you just contuine to prove my point that "use this petty claim to either start a new argument without having to deal with the previous ones you had lost".

>objectively
More proof you don't know what words mean.

>>231311
What makes it necessary to accuse my hypothetical advice as being "happy"?

My advice is not to follow trivial pleasure, it is to accept the conditions of existence as they present themselves to you; to come to terms with being. This requires deep pain, but a pain in service of a sacrificial sanctification of the pursuit of the higher self. The present man must be sacrificed so that the future may exist.

If you believe that to be superficial blissful idiocy then you have misunderstood the tragedy of life.

>>231323
Not him, but you're objectively retarded.

You're pretty clearly narcissistic.

>>231326
>objectively
Based moron refutes himself within his first post to me. You could at least wait until your second post to lose like the previous poster did