/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11245071]

Haidt just utterly destroyed Kant and Bentham with this image

[Anonymous No.11245085]

>>11245071
How is he destroying Kant? Kant is outside of the autism zone, Bentham is the one being btfo by being called more autistic than Kant.

[Anonymous No.11245090]

>>11245085
Kant was most likely on the spectrum

[Anonymous No.11245109]

>>11245090
Well yeah, which is why it makes the fact that Kant's not in "The Autism Zone" while Bentham is all the more insulting.

[Anonymous No.11245158]

>>11245085
Leave it to an autist to be fine with only just barely escaping the Zone

[Anonymous No.11245159]

>>11245109
Never said he was, I'm not OP.

Here's a direct quote from Haidt if you're interested:

On Bentham:Bentham’s philosophy showed an extraordinary degree of systemizing, and as Baron-Cohen says, systemizing is a strength. Problems arise, however, when systemizing occurs in the absence of empathizing. In an article titled “Asperger’s Syndrome and the Eccentricity and Genius of Jeremy Bentham,” Philip Lucas and Anne Sheeran collect accounts of Bentham’s personal life and compare them to the diagnostic criteria for Asperger’s syndrome.17 They find a close match on the main diagnostic criteria, including those involving low empathy and poor social relationships. Bentham had few friends as a child, and he left a string of angry ex-friends as an adult. He never married, referred to himself as a hermit, and seemed to care little about other people. One contemporary said of him: “He regards the people about him no more than the flies of a summer.”18
A related criterion is an impaired imaginative capacity, particularly with respect to the inner lives of other people. In his philosophy as in his personal behavior, Bentham offended many of his contemporaries by his inability to perceive variety and subtlety in human motives. John Stuart Mill—a decidedly non-autistic utilitarian—came to despise Bentham. He wrote that Bentham’s personality disqualified him as a philosopher because of the “incompleteness” of his mind:
In many of the most natural and strongest feelings of human nature he had no sympathy; from many of its graver experiences he was altogether cut off; and the faculty by which one mind understands a mind different from itself, and throws itself into the feelings of that other mind, was denied him by his deficiency of Imagination.19

Lucas and Sheeran conclude that had Bentham been alive today, “it is likely he would have received the diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome.”

On Kant: Like Bentham, Kant was a loner who never married and whose inner life seems cold. He was famous for his love of routine (he set out for his afternoon walk at precisely three-thirty every day, regardless of the weather), and some experts have speculated that he too had Asperger’s syndrome.23 After reading accounts of Kant’s personal life, however, I think the case is not as clear as it is for Bentham. Kant was widely liked, and he did seem to enjoy company, although some of his socializing had a calculated feel to it (he valued laughter and companionship because they were good for his health).24 The safest thing to do is to take advantage of Baron-Cohen’s two dimensions and say that Kant was one of the most extraordinary systemizers in human history while being rather low on empathizing, without joining Bentham at the bottom right corner of figure 6.1.

[Anonymous No.11245160]

>>11245071
Why couldn't you post the whole fucking image?

[Anonymous No.11245164]

>>11245159
>Problems arise, however, when systemizing occurs in the absence of empathizing
>Assigning any value to empathy at all
Stopped reading right there. Would have tossed the book into the trash bin.

[Anonymous No.11245180]

>>11245160
>>11245164
Autists spotted

[Anonymous No.11245182]

>>11245164
Viewed as a function of a complete understanding rather than 'feels'. One cannot systemize, if one doesn't understand all the variables that are at play.
>Stopped reading right there.
I doubt you've ever begun reading.

[Anonymous No.11245183]

>>11245159
Anyone who has read the Critique of Pure Reason would know that Kant wrote the thing not because he was autistic, but because he knew he was capable of it and therefore obligated to do it by a solemn duty. He even jokes about how dry and obscure it is. We should really stop judging the personalities of figures of history by modern standards.

[Anonymous No.11245189]

>>11245183
Who said anything about what motivated Kant to write it? What?

[Anonymous No.11245191]

>>11245071
>>11245159
It amuses me how this absolute nothing who will probably be forgotten in 50 years feels so qualified to disparage some of the most well-known Western philosophers of all time based on biographical accounts of their personalities.

[Anonymous No.11245195]

Empathy is the enemy of a developing good ethics,anyways.

[Anonymous No.11245197]

>>11245182
And why is empathy a variable that you must take into consideration?

[Anonymous No.11245206]

>>11245191
>disparage
That's not at all what he does. Read the book for context. Also, easy on the rock-star view of lit and philosophy spongebobmemeboy.

[Anonymous No.11245207]

>>11245191
Much the same could be said about you you illiterate

[Anonymous No.11245213]

>>11245195
Ethics after artistotle was a mistake :/

[Anonymous No.11245215]

>>11245158
There's nothing autistic about interpreting a diagram exactly as it's fucking written buddy. Kant is a known autist and making a diagram that basically says "this guy who's a known autist actually wasn't in The Autism Zone, that honor goes to Bentham" is obviously intentional.

>>11245159
>Problems arise, however, when systemizing occurs in the absence of empathizing
>:^| (this is my disdain face)

[Anonymous No.11245221]

>>11245191
He'll be remembered for his contributions to moral psychology. Kohlberg and Gilligan style moral psychology theories that focused on stage models and one concept (justice/care) are being replaced by his theory of multiple concepts all acting in the minds of individuals to differing degrees in a piecemeal developmental process.

[Anonymous No.11245224]

>>11245197
Because you can't develop an "algorithm" that parametrizes "hedons" and "dolors" without having an understanding of human empathy.

[Anonymous No.11245225]

>>11245224
please own me master

[Anonymous No.11245231]

>>11245224
oh, is he just saying it matters when it comes to utilitarianism and not valuing empathy in all morality? didn't read the passage btw

[Anonymous No.11245240]

>>11245206
>>11245207
>>11245221
OK I don’t know what I’m talking about sorry

[Anonymous No.11245243]

>>11245225
only if you admit that you like the taste of my farts and want some more

[Anonymous No.11245248]

>>11245240
It's okay. The book is interesting but I'm not wholly convinced so far. I think haidt does serve well as someone speaking to a nerd to widen conceptions of moral thinking.

[Anonymous No.11245253]

>>11245071
I don't remember this chart in his righteous mind book. where is this from?

[Anonymous No.11245256]

>>11245231
Like I said, he is viewing it as a function of systemizing and how its oversight leads to descriptive blind-spots, not necessarily as a value in itself - not in this argument anyway, he does look at it separately in other chapters.
>didn't read the passage btw
Also, next time read. I know it's a lot to ask of /lit/. Anything outside of Zizek worshipping, Peterson meme mocking and REEEing over pamphlet philosophy syntheses is out of bounds for this board.

[Anonymous No.11245265]

>the autism zone
i live there

[Anonymous No.11245267]

>>11245253
Chapter six of The Righteous Mind

[Anonymous No.11245269]

its a shame that someone knowledgeable about psychology still buys into the notion of mental illnesses. autism is just a label used to stigmatize people with lower than average empathy and other such characteristics. It's literally falling for the "difference equals deficit" fallacy

[Anonymous No.11245283]

>>11245269
t. Sperger McAutismo

[Anonymous No.11245285]

>>11245267
found it. here's the context of the image for the rest of you guys

[Anonymous No.11245287]

>>11245269
Mad that mummy wouldn't give you any tendies tn off of your reward board eh?

[Anonymous No.11245288]

>>11245269
It's a shame that someone knowledgeable about psychometrics still buys into the notion of mental illness. Clinical retardation is just a label used to stigmatise people with (much) lower than average information processing capabilities and other such characteristics. It's literally falling for the "difference equals deficit" fallacy.

[Anonymous No.11245298]

>>11245285

[Anonymous No.11245302]

>>11245298

[Anonymous No.11245303]

>>11245269
It's a shame that someone knowledgeable of biomedical science still buys into the notion of obesity. Obese is just a label used to stigmatise people with a considerably higher than average proportion of fat tissue and other such characteristics. It's literally falling for the "difference equals deficit" falacy.

[Anonymous No.11245310]

>>11245298
What does it even mean to systemize? I would like more examples if someone could explain

[Anonymous No.11245313]

Who else /high-systemizer-mid-to-high-empathizer/ here?

[Anonymous No.11245321]

>>11245288
I agree with this
>>11245303
obesity causes physical problems. not the same

[Anonymous No.11245324]

>>11245310
A tendency to see things as systems with defining boundaries with copious categorization and logical thought processes, typically to the exclusion of emotive, empathetic, and aesthetic sides of the argument

[Anonymous No.11245325]

>>11245298
>a decidedly non-autistic utilitarian
an oxymoron

[Anonymous No.11245336]

>>11245321
So clinical retardation is not a deficit?

[Anonymous No.11245342]

>>11245321

autism causes depression and loneliness, which is bad for your health

>>11245090

no shit? everybody's on the spectrum. that's the point of it

[Anonymous No.11245343]

>>11245321
>I agree with this
I wonder who is behind this post

[Anonymous No.11245348]

>>11245243

[Anonymous No.11245353]

>>11245336
It's not a physical deficit. Low intelligence is a social deficit in the current social context but is not necessarily a deficit. Once can imagine social contexts in which it would be beneficial to have low intelligence.

[Anonymous No.11245354]

>>11245353
>Once can imagine social contexts in which it would be beneficial to have low intelligence.
4chan

[Anonymous No.11245355]

>>11245342
>that's the point of it
Right, force of habit. Still muscle memory. You know what I meant.

[Anonymous No.11245365]

>>11245342
>autism causes depression and loneliness, which is bad for your health
being bad for your health idn't the same as a physical deficit. btw, saying that autism is twice removed in the chain of causation is doing more to show how autisim itself isn't an illness.

[Anonymous No.11245371]

>>11245353
SO you're simply against value systems because they imply discriminating upon some principles, over others? You also seem to have something against categorisation in general.

You might be autistic.

[Anonymous No.11245394]

>>11245353
Shame that people regard sickle cell """disease""" as a disease, because it can reduce the severity of malaria.

[Anonymous No.11245396]

>>11245371
I don't see how your post has anything to do with my post.

[Anonymous No.11245406]

>>11245394
Bad example. It still causes physical deficits. Just because it also protects against something else doesn't mean it doesn't cause physical deficits.

[Anonymous No.11245411]

>>11245396
That's because you're both autistic and clinically retarded. They're both social constructs in our illusory groundless civilisation and they mean nothing in the vastness of the relativistic universe, so I wouldn't worry about it too much though.

[Anonymous No.11245414]

>>11245406
Just like clinical retardation produces mental deficits. Boggles the mind innit?

[Anonymous No.11245425]

This book seems too long for the points its making. Is there much insight or is mostly just driving the same notions? I'm thinking of just watching a couple of his lectures.

[Anonymous No.11245431]

>>11245414
mental deficits are only deficits in certain social contexts. there is no such thing as a mental deficit which is always a deficit, necessarily, in all contexts. this is what makes the idea of mental illnesses retarded.

[Anonymous No.11245433]

>>11245215
>this is my disdain face

Why don't you take it back to Readit and let your boyfriend facefuck it you flaming homo

[Anonymous No.11245439]

>>11245425
There is. The thesis that there is a neural pre-wiring for ethics and temperament which in turn modulates our personal ethics and political leanings is something that's worth going into detail for. Otherwise you'll just be reverentially regurgitating, or hating on youtube soundbites like people do in Peterson threads.

[Anonymous No.11245445]

>>11245431
>mental deficits are only deficits in certain social contexts. there is no such thing as a mental deficit which is always a deficit, necessarily, in all contexts.
mental deficits are only problems in certain social contexts. there is no such thign as a mental deficit which is always a problem, necessarily, in all contexts.*****

[Anonymous No.11245457]

>>11245285
>kant
>low empathizer
kek what a brainlet the author is

[Anonymous No.11245459]

>>11245431
Intelligence isn't an exclusive measure of social reward you utter fucking moron. It can be viewed and IS a distinct, independent category that describes various features of information processing. A deficit is a state of being defective or of lacking some necessary quality or element. Being clinically retarded is suffering from a deficit of intelligence, regardless of your social relativistic cretinism.

[Anonymous No.11245462]

>>11245285
also
>systemising relevant thigs is autistic
what a foggot really

[Anonymous No.11245472]

>>11245459
see >>11245445

[Anonymous No.11245474]

>>11245298
utilitarian is not only autistic but reaterded

[Anonymous No.11245475]

assburger cunts have too much empathy, it's a myth that they don't have it.
What they lack is the ability to map it, act properly on it; they lack sympathy, as that which most people find emotional they don't (or not in the same way), but they feel the same emotions, so they can understand a person is sad and become sad for them (empathy, feel their suffering, no problem reading faces). They just don't understand why you are sad about X. So what they find harmless behavior, others are angered by; assburger cunts sense their anger/irritation and aversion, and leave, eventually leaving all social-interaction as they do not wish to be an nuisance anymore.

[Anonymous No.11245478]

>>11245472
I've seen it. It's retarded as it sees intelligence as an exclusive function of social reward, just like all your posts did. Absolutely retarded.

[Anonymous No.11245483]

>>11245313
Me, I'm constantly surprised by just how fucking callous and inconsiderate people are in everyday life (I've mostly gotten over it though). It boggles me to think that Hegel of all people was the only philosopher that understood that much of human behavior is driven by the need for recognition.

[Anonymous No.11245490]

>>11245483
*boggles my mind to think that

[Anonymous No.11245503]

>>11245478
it does not see it as an exclusive function of social reward. you thought I was saying deficits are context dependent. I wasn't. you're also assuming that when I say the problems associated with low intelligence depends on social contexts I'm somehow saying that intelligence is only about social reward, which is a false assumption.

[Anonymous No.11245505]

>>11245462
autists are the only ones autistic enough to systemize those things, he puts no negative value on the actual systems produced, rather a positive one. the point is they are incomplete, and serve as a necessary piece of the puzzle, ergo, we need autists to do the dirty work as most other people CoulD CarE LesS

[Anonymous No.11245525]

>>11245503
You are saying that they are not "deficits" simply because one can imagine (social) worlds in which they are neutral, or advantageous and that we're falsely equating "difference" with "deficit"

>its a shame that someone knowledgeable about psychology still buys into the notion of mental illnesses. autism is just a label used to stigmatize people with lower than average empathy and other such characteristics. It's literally falling for the "difference equals deficit" fallacy

>It's not a physical deficit. Low intelligence is a social deficit in the current social context but is not necessarily a deficit. Once can imagine social contexts in which it would be beneficial to have low intelligence.

>mental deficits are only deficits in certain social contexts. there is no such thing as a mental deficit which is always a deficit, necessarily, in all contexts. this is what makes the idea of mental illnesses retarded.

You are incapable of seeing these as categories independent of social perception, hence your error and possibly persecution complex.

[Anonymous No.11245531]

>>11245525
>You are saying that they are not "deficits"
No I'm not. you clearly did not see this correction >>11245445
I'm saying they ARE always deficits, but are only contingently problems.

[Anonymous No.11245535]

>>11245288
>>11245303

[Anonymous No.11245538]

>>11245439
I'm interested in one thing in particular, maybe you can help me out here...

Most people think you can argue a political position with logic and reasoning, but, like ethics, politics has no answer because what is "right" is subjective, and not subjective in a "postmodern" sense -- things like being averse to risk, or being pathologically xenophobic, all that stuff affects your political views and no amount of debate is going to change them.

Now the interesting questions are 1) what is the mapping between our personality and political views, and 2) now that we've established that politics is basically genetic, what do we do about?

Very briefly: what does this book have to say about these? I'm interested in this topic so if the author sheds some light on these questions, I will be getting the book.

[Anonymous No.11245542]

>>11245531
That last point refers to "all contexts". I was never talking about contexts to begin with. The only context I was talking about was the one contained within the category itself (ie: intelligence; health; etc). You stated that difference does not equal deficit, because you are incapable of seeing them as independent categories.

[Anonymous No.11245544]

>>11245505
>those things
what?

[Anonymous No.11245554]

>>11245542
nothing you're saying here makes sense, clarify or stop posting

[Anonymous No.11245555]

>>11245431
Autistic people can be functionally incapable of learning or even speaking

[Anonymous No.11245565]

>>11245535
is that you?

[Anonymous No.11245566]

>>11245071
Utterly destroyed... hmm... I like that. I'm going to use in the title of the next Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro video I upload.

[Anonymous No.11245567]

>>11245555
>incapable of learning or even speaking
which are just mental deficits as well

[Anonymous No.11245571]

>>11245538
1) Haidt's thesis simply states that there is a direct modulation of political leaning by temperament. The "mapping" is the book.
2) It doesn't say that it's genetic in the sense that it's hard-wired, more like it's pre-wired, so our brains favour a certain type of internalisation of environmental factors over others and our reason is more often than not our intuition's lawyer, but that the gaps between us can be bridged and he actually offers models for this. Obviously, 4chan is not the place where you apply them.

So yeah, read the book. You'll find plenty of meat on both of your questions.

[Anonymous No.11245580]

>>11245554
You're autistic and clinically retarded.

[Anonymous No.11245586]

>>11245555
the problem is "autism" is actually a very wide spectrum of disease, and there are so many phenotypes. I think in the context of this discussion, we are talking about high-functioning autists, with less severe pathologies such as social deficits or what may be considered eccentricity by some.

The fact is there was no such thing as "autism" when Kant was alive, people like him were perhaps considered abnormal or an outsider, but not a afflicted with a disease.

[Anonymous No.11245605]

I think we should all just accept that we are all a bit autistic even being here in the first place

[Anonymous No.11245634]

>>11245531
You're saying you've moved the goalposts.

[Anonymous No.11245645]

>>11245634
making a correction immediately after posting before anyone has responded is not moving the goalposts

[Anonymous No.11245691]

>>11245645
You dishonest retard, you posted three times saying they are differences, not deficits, because they are (social) context dependant, because you're incapable of seeing them as distinct categories. Then you not only moved goalposts, but changed the subject by making it about "deficits not always being problems". What? Absolute retard.

[Anonymous No.11245715]

God damn it I also took a picture of that page. I nearly started laughing on the bus because of the unintended humor of the autism zone.

[Anonymous No.11245717]

>>11245605
Why do I keep seeing posts like this? Almost no one here is a loser, there are always going to be whiny bitches like you just shut the fuck up retard.

[Anonymous No.11245721]

>>11245586
Yes there were. They were considered changelings and killed when they were young.

[Anonymous No.11245751]

>>11245691
oh you're right, I was confusing terms. instead of saying a deficit is not always a problem I should have been saying a difference is not always a deficit.

[Anonymous No.11245766]

>>11245751
That's what you said three times you fucking mongoloid. Not only that but you said in the case of clinical retardation and autism they unequivocally AREN'T deficits at all because they're just differences and they're context dependant:

>its a shame that someone knowledgeable about psychology still buys into the notion of mental illnesses. autism is just a label used to stigmatize people with lower than average empathy and other such characteristics. It's literally falling for the "difference equals deficit" fallacy

>It's not a physical deficit. Low intelligence is a social deficit in the current social context but is not necessarily a deficit. Once can imagine social contexts in which it would be beneficial to have low intelligence.

>mental deficits are only deficits in certain social contexts. there is no such thing as a mental deficit which is always a deficit, necessarily, in all contexts. this is what makes the idea of mental illnesses retarded.

Again, the issue is you are incapable of seeing intelligence as an independent category.

[Anonymous No.11245807]

>>11245766
You aren't grasping that I made a mistake in the bottom two quotes by accidentally replacing "difference with "deficit" and "deficit" with "problem". that was an accident and I should have continued using the terms difference and deficit.

I stand by what I said in the first quote you posted. I correctly used difference and deficit there.
In the second quote I incorrectly started using deficit rather than difference and problem rather than deficit. Same in the third quote.

When corrected, the second quote should read like this:
>It's not a physical deficit. Low intelligence is a difference but it is not necessarily a deficit. One can imagine social contexts when low intelligence would not be a deficit.
And the third like this:
>mental differences are only deficits in certain social contexts. there is no such thing as a mental difference which is always a deficit.

[Anonymous No.11245819]

>>11245807
minor correction, in the mistaken third quote I started using "deficit" to mean both "difference" and "deficit", so it was a different mistake than the one made in the second quote. but my correction fixed both mistakes

[Anonymous No.11245852]

>>11245807
You're still not getting it you utter moron. You're talking about social deficits, or deficits of another nature.
Clinical retardation is always a mental deficit because it indicates a defect, or a lacking of certain information processing qualities, or elements. Which is the definition of a deficit. The fact that one can imagine retardation to be advantageous, or neutral in certain contexts, some of which social, has nothing to do with the fact that intelligence in itself is a category and within it, retardation is an unequivocal deficit.

Fuck you are an autistic retard. Luckily for you, 4chan is one of those contexts in which this mental deficit is certainly not a social one as well.

[Anonymous No.11245879]

>>11245852
I think I see what the problem is. you're understanding deficit to simply mean less than in a quantitative sense. Obviously having lower intelligence means you have less intelligence than someone with higher intelligence, and having lower intelligence means you have less cognitive faculties at your disposal. The fallacy of "difference equals deficit" doesn't use the word deficit in that way. Deficit in that phrase refers to it being inferior or bad in some way, not in a quantitative sense. Its passing a judgement on it.

[Anonymous No.11245886]

>>11245721
changelings would have had very evident phenotypes. So yes, perhaps non-verbal autism would fit this, the majority of the autistic spectrum would go unnoticed, especially at such an early age.

[Anonymous No.11245892]

>>11245717
did I hit a bit too close to home there bud

[Anonymous No.11245895]

>>11245879
Well it is inferior you dumb relativistic nigger. In the realm of successful information processing, clinical retardation is both quantitatively and qualitatively inferior to higher intelligence. Why are you so afraid of hierarchies?

[Anonymous No.11245910]

The most successful people in our society are literally high-functioning autists that have consciously learned social behaviour in their youth. Read about any of the great innovators, inventors, artists, writers, scientists, philosophers; most of them are incredibly high-functioning and have eccentricities that are linked to the autistic spectrum.

[Anonymous No.11245923]

>>11245895
Remember, this is a discussion about the legitimacy of mental illnesses. Right now you're using the standard of successful information processing to determine whether or not having low intelligence is a deficit. Sure, with regards to that standard it is a deficit to have lower intelligence. But does using that standard tell us anything about it being an illness or a disease? No, it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.11245926]

>>11245886
No? Changelings were identified during infancy, pre speech and entirely based off of behavior. At the critical juncture where autism directly inhibited the ability of the brain to learn.

[Anonymous No.11245976]

>>11245923
>Remember, this is a discussion about the legitimacy of mental illnesses.
No. It was about deficits. Mental deficits more specifically. Which clinical retardation is.
>Sure, with regards to that standard it is a deficit to have lower intelligence.
Well done. You've successfully managed to view intelligence as a distinct category, independent from social reward, thus rendering clinical retardation as a deficit within that spectrum of mental activity.
>But does using that standard tell us anything about it being an illness or a disease?
No, it tells use everything about it being a mental deficit as we know what the optimal functioning standards are for normal intelligence and anything below that is a deficit. Moreso, retardation is generally an effect/symptom and is classed as a disability. There are various illnesses/diseases that can cause it.

[Anonymous No.11246025]

>>11245976
>No. It was about deficits. Mental deficits more specifically. Which clinical retardation is.
see >>11245269
I'm applying the fallacy "difference equals deficits" to mental illness. I'm not arguing against the existence of deficits, I'm arguing that there is no such thing as a mental difference that is an illness.
>Well done. You've successfully managed to view intelligence as a distinct category, independent from social reward, thus rendering clinical retardation as a deficit within that spectrum of mental activity.
Which is not what this has been about. This has been about being a disease or an illness. Saying that being retarded is a deficit with regards to successful information processing is not the same as saying it is a mental illness. If you want to argue that you'd have to insist that the standard of successful information processing is the standard for all illnesses, which it obviously isn't. Colon cancer is an illness and having it doesn't interfering with information processing. This shows how being a deficit with regards to information processing is not the same as being a mental illness (which is what I've been using deficit to refer to this whole time).
>No, it tells use everything about it being a mental deficit as we know what the optimal functioning standards are for normal intelligence and anything below that is a deficit
Everything I said above is a response to this too.
>Moreso, retardation is generally an effect/symptom and is classed as a disability. There are various illnesses/diseases that can cause it.
I've been arguing against the entire classification system of mental illnesses. What is the point of telling me how its classified if you already know I disagree.

[Anonymous No.11246075]

>>11246025
>I'm not arguing against the existence of deficits
>>11245353 Low intelligence is a social deficit in the current social context but is not necessarily a deficit. Once can imagine social contexts in which it would be beneficial to have low intelligence.
>>11245807
>mental differences are only deficits in certain social contexts. there is no such thing as a mental difference which is always a deficit.
You've already concede to having seen intelligence as dependant to other contexts. Are we going back now?

>I'm arguing that there is no such thing as a mental difference that is an illness.
Not sure. Mental is a word that describe phenomenological activity, sort of a projection of the brain, so yes, I suppose mental differences, even negative ones would be disabilities and whatever cause them at the physiological level would be illnesses.

No one claimed clinical retardation, or autism were mental illnesses though. Not even Haidt which is why you claim to have started REEEing. They are simply mental deficits.

[Anonymous No.11246133]

>>11246075
>Low intelligence is a social deficit in the current social context but is not necessarily a deficit. Once can imagine social contexts in which it would be beneficial to have low intelligence.
Why are you quoting the post that I already explained to you made mistakes on accident and I already corrected? Also, nothing in that post shows that I was arguing against the very idea of deficits. I'm arguing against mental differences being mental illnesses, that is clear in the corrected post. And it should be clear because I'm only arguing against the idea of mental illnesses.
>You've already concede to having seen intelligence as dependant to other contexts. Are we going back now?
You're not being clear, and no I'm not backtracking at all.
>Mental is a word that describe phenomenological activity, sort of a projection of the brain, so yes, I suppose mental differences, even negative ones would be disabilities and whatever cause them at the physiological level would be illnesses.
What is this trying to accomplish? You're telling me your position without explaining why you believe it.
>No one claimed clinical retardation, or autism were mental illnesses though. Not even Haidt which is why you claim to have started REEEing. They are simply mental deficits.
>>11245285 In the first paragraph he says autism is a spectrum disorder that ranges from serious mental illness to those not good at reading people.

[Anonymous No.11246195]

>>11246133
I am quoting all of those things because you lied about the argument being something about other than deficits.
As far as the mental illness thing goes, I'm not sure. I understands 'mental' to be phenomenological, a projection of the brain, so I'm unsure to see illnesses beyond the physiological realm. Both autism and retardation are certainly disorders, the latter being a disability as well, while the former being hinged upon other factors.

Now that I look at the definition of mental illness (as per the new DSM5):
>A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above

Haidt is right in saying that autism ranges from serious mental illness to the 4chan garden variety.

[Anonymous No.11246276]

>>11246195
>I am quoting all of those things because you lied about the argument being something about other than deficits.
My first post introducing the difference equals deficit fallacy was about arguing against mental differences being mental illnesses. I never lied, you just misunderstood me. I was never arguing against all deficits, I was only using that fallacy to illustrate my position against mental illnesses.
> I'm unsure to see illnesses beyond the physiological realm. Both autism and retardation are certainly disorders, the latter being a disability as well, while the former being hinged upon other factors.
>As far as the mental illness thing goes, I'm not sure. I understands 'mental' to be phenomenological, a projection of the brain, so I'm unsure to see illnesses beyond the physiological realm.
It seems like you agree with me if you only buy into physical diseases and not mental ones. The concept of mental illness is about behavioral deficits (which I don't believe in) and not physical decificts. Look at the definition you posted and see how it is characterized by problems in social life and behavior rather than some physical deficit.
>Both autism and retardation are certainly disorders, the latter being a disability as well, while the former being hinged upon other factors.
I don't know how exactly you're distinguishing disorders/disabilities from illnesses/diseases. If you're just saying that autism and retardation lead to social problems and cause you to have less intelligence than other people then sure I agree. Notice how you can only say those things are disorders or disabilities by using some standard other than the standard of being a disease though. I would just call that a difference because to calling it a disorder or a disability is only true depending on that standard you're using and not true independent of it.
>the definition
yeah, Haidt's usage matches the DSM usage. I'm objecting to both.

[Anonymous No.11246441]

>>11246276
>My first post introducing the difference equals deficit fallacy was about arguing against mental differences being mental illnesses. I never lied, you just misunderstood me. I was never arguing against all deficits, I was only using that fallacy to illustrate my position against mental illnesses.
You consistently denied that clinical retardation is a mental deficit, by stressing on the fact that 'differences aren't deficits'. Once I got you to acknowledge that intelligence is a category that is independent of social context you acknowledged that deficits are possible and retardation is one.
>It seems like you agree with me if you only buy into physical diseases and not mental ones.
I don't know. Intuitively, it's harder for me to conceptualise what would constitute as illnesses in the phenomenological realm. That is not to say mental deficiencies do not have physiological manifestations...
>Notice how you can only say those things are disorders or disabilities by using some standard other than the standard of being a disease though
There is such a thing as an optimum level of intelligence. Sure, the IQ threshold under which one is considered mentally retarded is imposed by what we deem functional in society, but the fact remains that there is a preformative portrait for retardation (as those who fall in that category are statistical outliers), while in some cases there is an actual neural portrait of retardation. A disease/illness is simply a structural, or functional disorder that is not caused by an external injury. I realise that your autism will hinge on 'disorder' and how that is relativistic, but normality, or undisturbed systems can be observed empirically outside social norms. What I actually find relativistic is health. Our definition of it has constantly changed as to cast a wider net. What was healthy half a century ago could very well be attributed an entirely different label today. Which is what makes the opposite of health tricky, especially when we're not referring to pathogens, but conceptual objects like 'mental illness'. While clinical retardation and some forms of autism will always be mental deficits, in and of themselves, their relation to disease is less clear, but more to do with semantic faggotry which I'm not that interested in.

[Anonymous No.11246464]

>>11245071
wew. this passes for philosophy?

[Anonymous No.11246538]

[Anonymous No.11246548]

How was Bentham unempathetic?

Jeremy Bentham (/ˈbɛnθəm/; 15 February 1748 [O.S. 4 February 1747][1] – 6 June 1832) was an English philosopher, jurist, and social reformer regarded as the founder of modern utilitarianism.[2][3]

Bentham defined as the "fundamental axiom" of his philosophy the principle that "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong".[4][5] He became a leading theorist in Anglo-American philosophy of law, and a political radical whose ideas influenced the development of welfarism. He advocated for individual and economic freedoms, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce, and the decriminalising of homosexual acts.[6] He called for the abolition of slavery, of the death penalty, and of physical punishment, including that of children.[7] He has also become known as an early advocate of animal rights.[8] Though strongly in favour of the extension of individual legal rights, he opposed the idea of natural law and natural rights (both of which are considered "divine" or "God-given" in origin), calling them "nonsense upon stilts".[9] Bentham was also a sharp critic of legal fictions.

[Anonymous No.11247070]

>>11246548
>happiness can be reduced to a cold, sterile, lifeless mathematical formula
>not being autistic
Choose one

[Anonymous No.11247079]

>>11245071
The Autism Zone

[Anonymous No.11247388]

>>11247070
>happiness can be reduced to a cold, sterile, lifeless mathematical formula
did you read all the things he believed in after?

And he based that statement on the belief that individuals causing or allowing suffering to other individuals 'in the particular society that his ideal of utilitarianism would take place' could not possibly result in some and certainly not a majority of individuals happiness. That is part of his mathematical formulas of the philosophy, attempting to prove that. The former hinges on that latter.

[Anonymous No.11247471]

>>11245433
>:^|

[Anonymous No.11248128]

>>11245544
the things 99% of people cOUld cArE lEss thinking about

[Anonymous No.11248154]

>>11247388
You're basing that on a wikipedia paragraph that isn't even an entirely correct synthesis.Those conclusions can be arrived at through systemizing whereby an understanding of empathy isn't necessary - his own algorithm includes no feature that accounts for its manifestation. Why don't you read why it is that his peers, along with psychologists considered him autistic?

>On Bentham:Bentham’s philosophy showed an extraordinary degree of systemizing, and as Baron-Cohen says, systemizing is a strength. Problems arise, however, when systemizing occurs in the absence of empathizing. In an article titled “Asperger’s Syndrome and the Eccentricity and Genius of Jeremy Bentham,” Philip Lucas and Anne Sheeran collect accounts of Bentham’s personal life and compare them to the diagnostic criteria for Asperger’s syndrome.17 They find a close match on the main diagnostic criteria, including those involving low empathy and poor social relationships. Bentham had few friends as a child, and he left a string of angry ex-friends as an adult. He never married, referred to himself as a hermit, and seemed to care little about other people. One contemporary said of him: “He regards the people about him no more than the flies of a summer.”18
A related criterion is an impaired imaginative capacity, particularly with respect to the inner lives of other people. In his philosophy as in his personal behavior, Bentham offended many of his contemporaries by his inability to perceive variety and subtlety in human motives. John Stuart Mill—a decidedly non-autistic utilitarian—came to despise Bentham. He wrote that Bentham’s personality disqualified him as a philosopher because of the “incompleteness” of his mind:
In many of the most natural and strongest feelings of human nature he had no sympathy; from many of its graver experiences he was altogether cut off; and the faculty by which one mind understands a mind different from itself, and throws itself into the feelings of that other mind, was denied him by his deficiency of Imagination.19

[Anonymous No.11248180]

>>11248154
>when systemizing occurs in the absence of empathizing.
where did his systemizing lack emapthy?

>low empathy and poor social relationships.
lol...bahbahbahaahb normies dont understand singular once in several generation geniuses who are aware they have a severe and important lifes work:
>Jeremy failed to smile to me when I said hi to him this morning...I think this is important in relation to his work as a whole

maybe marx is a bad example but
>who cares about his writing, he didnt even have a job!

>Mozart sneezed once in public!

>Newton was a meanie!

>Michaelangelo once ignored his mothers letter!

>Leonardo da vinci looked meanly at the people he walked by in the street severeal mornings while he was deep in thought!


>Bentham became convinced that his plans for the Panopticon had been thwarted by the King and an aristocratic elite acting in their own interests. It was largely because of his brooding sense of injustice that he developed his ideas of "sinister interest" – that is, of the vested interests of the powerful conspiring against a wider public interest – which underpinned many of his broader arguments for reform

>More successful was his cooperation with Patrick Colquhoun in tackling the corruption in the Pool of London. This resulted in the Thames Police Bill of 1798, which was passed in 1800.[19] The bill created the Thames River Police, which was the first preventive police force in the country and was a precedent for Robert Peel's reforms 30 years later

>Bentham was in correspondence with many influential people. In the 1780s, for example, Bentham maintained a correspondence with the aging Adam Smith, in an unsuccessful attempt to convince Smith that interest rates should be allowed to freely float.[21] As a result of his correspondence with Mirabeau and other leaders of the French Revolution, Bentham was declared an honorary citizen of France

>Between 1808 and 1810, he held a personal friendship with Latin American Independence Precursor Francisco de Miranda and paid visits to Miranda's Grafton Way house in London.

>In 1823, he co-founded the Westminster Review with James Mill as a journal for the "Philosophical Radicals" – a group of younger disciples through whom Bentham exerted considerable influence in British public life.[23] One was John Bowring, to whom Bentham became devoted, describing their relationship as "son and father": he appointed Bowring political editor of the Westminster Review and eventually his literary executor.[24] Another was Edwin Chadwick, who wrote on hygiene, sanitation and policing and was a major contributor to the Poor Law Amendment Act:

what are you talking about psycho

There is a massive blueberry pie and you are jumping up and down about a raisin

[Anonymous No.11248208]

>>11248180
>where did his systemizing lack emapthy?
He wanted to modulate law through utility saw the latter as the arithmetic sum of the expected utilities of each member. He parametrised utility into variables such as intensity, duration and certainty of "hedons" and "dolors" (pleasures and pains), then devised an algorithm by which to reach a moral verdict on any person, in any country, or culture. Subscribing or devising such a thing requires no understanding of empathy and his own system doesn't account much for it, or shows little understanding of it when he was factoring for the variables that modulate utility.

I don't know what those examples of Marx, Mozart, Newton and Michelangelo are supposed to illustrate. Strawmen illustrating your perception of my gripe with Bentham as Ad hominems? You forget that when parametrising utility, not understanding empathy and its function will lead to an erroneous analysis.

Here, if you're actually interested:
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1322989/1/008_Lucas_and_Sheeran__2006_.pdf

[Anonymous No.11248324]

>>11248208
are those professors from your hometown or your small school you are trying to shill?

>utility
you dont understand benthams utility, its different than the economic term, and as I have already stated a standard of empathy was embedded into his philosophy leading to the famous simple conclusion of most people most happy, that prevents the most people from deriving their most happiness by eating a minority amount.

What Benthams philosophy as you have portrayed be characterized as totalitarian facisicist sounding precursor to brave new world? He was not liberal enough, there is no centralized happy meters, individuals happiness is too complex and unique for an authority to administer and control it, except for most liberally. You do not think he believed in liberty?

what do you think of" He advocated for individual and economic freedoms, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce, and the decriminalising of homosexual acts.[6] He called for the abolition of slavery, He has also become known as an early advocate of animal rights."

>He advocated for individual and economic freedoms, freedom of expression,

>He advocated for individual and economic freedoms, freedom of expression,

>He advocated for individual and economic freedoms, freedom of expression,

sounds pretty empathetic

[Anonymous No.11248365]

>While the auto-icon normally resides at the end of the South Cloisters, one of the most commonly recounted stories is that the Auto-Icon regularly attends the international autism conference, and that it is solemnly wheeled into the conference to take its place among the presenters.

>Its presence, it is claimed, is always recorded in the minutes with the words 'Jeremy Bentham - present but not voting'.

[Anonymous No.11248390]

>>11248365
everyone in the world has autism, some just better than others

[Anonymous No.11248396]

Kek. He isn't wrong though.

[Anonymous No.11248412]

>>11245159
The dear professor Haidt looks like he suffers from generations of inbreeding.
I'd like to get his DNA sequence assayed. Specifically, I am interested in HEXA polymorphisms. I'm certain this subject has some real peculiarities. It is unfortunate that my curiosity, is somehow less valid than so his alleged rights to person and privacy.

[Anonymous No.11248415]

>>11248324
>are those professors from your hometown or your small school you are trying to shill?

No, they're not. They're extremely reputable psychologists who wrote a reputable peer-reviewed paper under the banner of a reputable university.

You're retarded. Advocating for individual and economic freedoms and freedom of expression aren't exclusive criteria by which one could reach a diagnosis. PLenty of Aspies who advocate and share the same values.


Either read the paper, or don't. I find your reasoning faulty and self-deceitful at best, or plain dishonest and retarded at worst, so I have nothing to gain from this exchange.

The paper is still there for you to consult. If you're happy reaching a diagnosis as a layman, according to a data-set merely exclusively on your interpretation of his wikipedia summary, fine by me. I don't find that you have anything meaningful to contribute though.

[Anonymous No.11248432]

>>11248415
your trying to discredit his lifes work and thought and beliefs, by your misunderstanding of his philosophy, and mainly a claim that he was autistic?

[Anonymous No.11248437]

>>11248412
he looks like an half Italian half anglo

[Anonymous No.11248450]

>>11248432
no. You don't even seem to understand the context in which that observation was made. The paper that argued for diagnosis inclined to Asperger was set on vindicating him for the ridicule and misrepresentation he faced during his lifetime, while Haidt's larger point was about how temperaments modulate our intuitions about justice and how empathy plays into that.

I know reading isn't popular amongst /lit/izens, but try it out before ascribing reasons to authors. The link is still there. I can provide you with a link for Haidt's book as well if you wish.

[Anonymous No.11248459]

>>11248437
Tanned Jew.

[Anonymous No.11248470]

>>11248450
yeah, I really just dont know, I just from the start didnt think some of the townspeoples observations of his behaviour were that important, nor the possibility he may have been autistic, I think his writing speaks for it self and is offended by such simple speak of it and him

[Anonymous No.11248473]

>>11248437
He look to be Ashkenazim, with cosmetic surgery undertaken (eg rhinoplasty).
An most peculiar specimen indeed. What stories his DNA would tell.

[Anonymous No.11248512]

>>11248473
The surname Haidt was first found in Bavaria, where the name Heidt was anciently associated with the tribal conflicts of the area. They declared allegiances to many nobles and princes of early history, lending their influence in struggles for power and status within the region. They branched into many houses, and their contributions were sought by many leaders in their search for power.

[Anonymous No.11248589]

I think Peirce has them beat.
I don't think these people were notably autistic, just extremely privleged, narcissistic and of course intelligent.