Contact Form * Contact Form Container */ .contact-form-widget { width: 500px; max-width: 100%; marg

Name

Email *

Message *

Is Political Correctness a Religious movement?


The argument goes, yes it it.  If a 'philosophy' has a moral framework, without accepting that 'morals'
are just opinions  and believing that morals exist a priori, well by neccessity means you
must resort to the metaphysical which is 'Religious'.

Is it collusion with the Russians to read Chekhov/Dostoyevsky/Solzhenitsyn etc etc etc

Will it influence me?  This whole collusiom nonsense is ripe for derision - but then the USA is an
adolescent country

If you are free then you not equal and if you are equal then you are not free

If you are free then you not equal
and if you are equal then you are not free

Bill Maher is a cultural Marxist - although he doesn't know it...bless.


You come out  a left leaning University -  indoctrinated

Your Professors before indoctrinating you has been indoctrinated

by French Theory - that intellectually attractive and cerebally seductive mind game

where all notions of essentialism are put to the rack

you think you are a man or woman, sorry you can't be, that is biological essentialism.

You read something and you think it means that, sorry there are endless meanings and to give it one
is essentialist.

I could go on...I am sure you have got the idea.

Combatttig PC (Political Correctness) is Europe's most vital question

The most vital question is: how can Western Europeans combat Political Correctness
and retake their society back

It is just not sufficient just to criticise Political Correctness for it tolerates a certain amount of criticism,
 even gentle mocking.

However it does not do so through genuine tolerance for other points of view,
under the guise of tolerance it aims to  disarm its opponents, to let itself seem less menacing than it is. The cultural

Liberal PC brigade now bestride Western Europe and the United States like a cultural colossus
and they are too savvy to appear totalitarian until their victory is assured.

Yet we nust defy it, we must use words it forbids, and
refuse to use the words it mandates; remember, sex is better than gender. They must shout from the
 rooftops the realities it seeks to suppress, such as our opposition to Sharia on a national and local level,

While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few Western Europeans realise that
Political Correctness is in fact is a totalitarian mind set  in a different set of clothes. As that realisation spreads, defiance will spread of it will also spread with it.



T

The dark side of compassion - pathological altruism

The Dark Side of Compassion

There is an emerging literature on "pathological altruism", suggesting that extreme compassion can have downsides such as difficulty passing judgment of right vs. wrong, and forgiving all transgression and failures of those in the in-group while acting highly protective and aggressive toward those in the out-group, even sometimes in the absence of actual provocation and injustice

Our 'compassion' is derived from the mother/child bond

High compassion is generally considered a good thing, 
however it's important to keep in mind that it evolved to facilitate the mother-child pair bond. 
Image result for google images virgin mary with child As such, the compassionate response is focused on those in need, and is biased toward negative emotional reactions (e.g., sad and fearful facial expressions). 

This increases a person's sense of similarity to vulnerable individuals and dissimilarity to dominant individuals

NATIVISM

Nativism is always aligned with an impulse or strategy to shape the culture with which it claims to have this privileged intimacy. It is urgently intent on identifying enemies and confronting them, and it is hostile to the point of loathing toward aspects of the society that are taken to show their influence. 

What good are the humanities? Why are they at the centre of our education









Oh the times! Oh the customs!   O tempora, o mores!


There is a great deal of questioning now of the value of the humanities, those aptly named disciplines that make us consider what human beings have been, and are, and will be


What is at stake now, in this rather inchoate cluster of anxieties that animates so many of us, is the body of learning and thought we call the HUMANITIES

Their transformative emergence has historically specifiable origins in the English and European Renaissance, greatly expedited by the emergence of the printing press. At the time and for centuries afterward it amounted to very much more than the spread of knowledge, because it was understood as a powerful testimony to human capacities, human grandeur, the divine in the human. And it had the effect of awakening human capacities that would not otherwise have been imagined.

And since the new cost of university is weighed against potential earnings, students and families being so burdened, the humanities are under great pressure to justify their existence

speaking of the mainstream media, therefore of the institutions that educate most people of influence in America, including journalists. Our great universities, with their vast resources, their exhaustive libraries, look like a humanist’s dream

bUT WHy teach the humanities? Why study them? American universities are literally shaped around them and have been since their founding, yet the question is put in the bluntest form—what are they good for? 

What is being invoked is the notion of a precious and unnamable essence, second nature to some, in the marrow of their bones, in effect. By this view others, whether they will or no, cannot understand or value it, and therefore they are a threat.



so how did the Political Correctness you live under come about?

The commissars of culture, Gramsci, Lukacs, MarcuSE et al (and other of the The 1930s Frankfurt School) are noted for their  theory of cultural hegemony as the means to class dominance.
"Cultural Terrorism" was a precursor to what Political Correctness would later bring to Western European schools.

In the 60s it would be 'French Theorists; Derrida and Foucault who followed this on.

What came about from this Critical Theory were sub-theories which were intended to chip away at specific elements of the existing culture, there was no longer a 'man' or a 'woman' that was biological essentialism (I can feel your eyes swivelling toward heaven) including "matriarchal theory", "androgyny theory", "personality theory", "authority theory", "family theory", "sexuality theory", "racial theory", "legal theory", and "literary theory". Put into practice, these theories were to be used to overthrow the prevailing social order and usher in social revolution and so you have POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

And the most passive recipients of this Cultural Terrorism were academics and today
Western Universities are in the view of some 'Little Koreas' of induction.

Many US college campuses becoming small, ivy-covered North Koreas.

Some say, make that many,  say that Many a US college campus is a small, ivy-covered North Korea. 

Political Correctness now looms over Westerm society like a colossus

Political Correctness now looms over Western European society like a colossus and be afraid, for depending on how you couch it differently you could go to Prison (the law in the UK) good old politicans those who emerge from PC Universities with the their
2.1s in PPV (Politics Philosophy Economics) and from there on in the words of Sophocles 'lurk behind every stone.

PC,  to give it its world renowned acronym, has taken over both political wings, left and right. Among so-called Western European "conservative" parties the actual cultural conservatives are shown the door because being a cultural conservative opposes the very essence of political correctness.
It controls the most powerful element in our culture, the media and entertainment industry. It dominates both public and higher education: many a college campus is a small, ivy-covered North Korea. It has even captured the higher clergy in many Christian churches. Anyone in the Establishment who departs from its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member of the Establishment


When addressing the general public, advocates of Political Correctness - or cultural Marxism, to give it its true name - present their beliefs attractively. It's all just a matter of being "sensitive" to other people, they say. They use words such as "tolerance" and "diversity", asking, "Why can't we all just get along?"

The reality is different. Political Correctness is not at all about "being nice", unless one thinks gulags are nice places. Political Correctness is Marxism, with all that implies: loss of freedom of expression, thought control, inversion of the traditional social order, and, ultimately, a totalitarian state. If anything, the cultural Marxism created by the Frankfurt School is more horrifying than the old, economic Marxism that ruined Russia. At least the economic Marxists did not attempt to create a matriarchy, as the Frankfurt School and its descendants have done.

Who is going to write the Algorithmns of our future?

What is taking place in technology is the great ‘decoupling’ of intelligence and consciousness by advances in artificial intelligence

Zonin down  to Algorithms -  they need to have their steps in the right order, they have to be sequential. Like say,  an algorithm for getting dressed in the morning...what if you put on your coat before your jumper? Your jumper would be on top of your coat and that would be silly! When you write an algorithm the order of the instructions is very important. 

So speaking of ‘new normals’ the view is, Algorithms embedded in silicon and metal will replace algorithms embedded in flesh. SCARY

Casting a dystopian eye on our future the consenual view is that new life forms will be created, breaking the chain which – from the beginnings of time from single-celled microscopic animals, from amoebas to Homo sapiens – made life an exclusive function of organic compounds. .

And  Who, what responsible persons are going to write these computer inputs...Silicon Valley is almost wholly left wing

Imitation is at the root of all behaviour

Human beings are born with a need for food and shelter. Once these fundamental necessities of life have been acquired, we look around us at what other people are doing, and wanting, and we copy them.  Imitation is at the root of all behaviour. So billions of people looking at their cell phones are like a multitude with their noses stuck in the sweet shop window envying others.  Social media is misanthropic.

Our 'new' reality, GOOGLE

We  are living in a world where Google is now people's reality; and these people  are being traduced by an advertising company who have digitally lobotomised billions of people on their ‘smart’ phones. 

Money making technology is the new shamanic power...that has us surrendering to the sorcery of our digital screens.., in the argot of a rampant Silicon Valley, human beings will become useless, ‘meat puppets’...but nothing is going to stop the advance of technology.

The solipistic left and their quest for personal definition

Those on the left students for instance, rooted in a solipsistic concern for personal definition, which explicitly excludes the idea of action embracing a whole political universe.

ctivist students of the left who are believers, in a prelapsarian philosophical idyll

There are lots of activist students who are believers, in a prelapsarian philosophical idyll – well, you are only young once..

The new 'abnornal' where students would deem quantum theory racist if they understood it.

Where the young (students)  and most thing are deemed  racist and in what might be termed as a rape or perversion of logic, where maths is even racist...wouldn’t surprise me if they deemed quantum theory racist and they would if they understood it.

The moral left - an egoistical yearning for personal transcendence


The Democrats and the left especially students  should  Stop imposing purist tests on people they want to convince...

one has to be wary of political activism that is really an egoistical yearning for personal transcendence

That is why one can refer to the liberal left agenda as a religion.

During Obama’s two terms in office, Democrats suffered a net loss of almost a thousand seats.

 Out of 99 state legislative chambers the Democrats now control only 32; 

only 16 of the 50 governors are Democrats. 

During Obama’s two terms in office, Democrats at state level suffered a net loss of almost a thousand seats.  Well done you Harvard graduate, once has to wonder who and what did they teach you.

While the progressives were out occupying Wall Street, it seems, the Republicans were occupying the country.

The American Constitution and the pursuit of that strange animal called 'happiness'

"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".


Some of us might not believe in the Creator part now, and some of us might find more and more difficult the idea that people are born equal when the conditions in which they are born are manifestly so unequal; and most of us would want to assume that by "men" Jefferson meant "people". 

And yet, as many people have noted, the pursuit of happiness – something not mentioned in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, nor in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – seems peculiarly salient; it is the only one of the things listed that is a pursuit.

What exactly might it mean to have an "unalienable right" to "the pursuit of happiness", given that it is fairly obvious that the pursuit of happiness is so morally equivocal – could be, among other things, a threat to the society that promoted it? At first sight it seems to be a pretty good idea; if we are convinced of anything now we are convinced that we are pleasure-seeking creatures, who want to minimise the pain and frustration of our lives. Or at least a "we" could be consolidated around these beliefs. We are the creatures who, possibly unlike any other animal, pursue happiness. But the pursuit of happiness, like the pursuit of liberty – the utopian political projects of the 20th century – has legitimated some of the worst crimes of contemporary history across the political spectrum

It is not happiness we should be pursuing but seriousness

Many esteeemed thinker think poorly of happiness and of people who claimed to be happy or desired happiness above other gratifications in life . . . they feel that seriousness not happiness was the desirable condition of man.

All writers are crypto psychoanalysists

All great writers consciously or not employ the associative habits of the analyst’s couch, and understand that in certain ways the forward movement of a piece of writing is a kind of voyage of self-discovery, a watching of their mind at work from a psychoanalytic point of view, all narrators are unreliable narrators.

Even the oh so sensitive with  their  armoury of caveats in their  internal landscape,  are always in the distance, panting to keep up to that cherished goal
Literature, the love of it, risks religiosity

A people who conceive life to be the pursuit of happiness must be chronically unhappy,

We all want to be happy, we want our children to be happy, and there are countless books advising us how to achieve happiness. But is this really what we should be aiming for?

It is not surprising, in other words, that happiness has always had rather a mixed reception. No one in their right minds we might think, especially now, would be promoting unhappiness; and yet the promotion, the preferring of happiness – the assumption of a right to happiness – brings with it a lot of things we might not like. And the desire for happiness may reveal things about ourselves that we like even less. "A people who conceive life to be the pursuit of happiness must be chronically unhappy," the anthropologist Marshall Sahlinswrote

Our relation to happiness often betrays an unconscious desire for disillusionment. The wanting of it and the having of it can seem like two quite different things. And this is what makes wishing so interesting; because wishing is always too knowing. When we wish we are too convinced of our pleasures, too certain that we know what we want. The belief that we can arrange our happiness – as though happiness were akin to justice, which we can work towards – may be to misrecognise the very thing that concerns us.


Happiness is something essentially subjective; in the sense of being not only personal but idiosyncratic). We can be surprised by what makes us happy, and it will not necessarily be something that makes other people happy. This has significant consequences not least in the area of our lives that is sometimes conducive to happiness, sexuality.


Second, bad things can make us happy – and by bad things I mean things consensually agreed to be unacceptable. It clearly makes some people happy to live in a world without Jews, or homosexuals, or immigrants, and so on. There are also what we might call genuinely bad things, like seriously harming people and other animals, that g


Cruelty can make people happy. And we might then want to think about what problem, or rather problems, happiness is deemed to be the solution to. It is not, for example, incidental to our predicament that so many of our pleasures are, or are felt to be, forbidden (this is what Freud's account of the Oedipus complex is a way of thinking about). So put briefly – as every child and therefore every adult knows – being bad can make you happy. Happiness is subjective, it takes many forms, and one of its forms is immorality.

 And this makes happiness as a social or communal pursuit complicated. We have only to imagine what it would be for someone to propose that we had a right to sexual satisfaction to imagine both how we might contrive this and what terrible things might be done in its name.

Unhappiness can, after all, among many other things, be the registration of injustice or loss. At its best, a culture committed to the pursuit of happiness might be committed, say, to the diminishing of injus

What if  ihe individual really loves and gets pleasure from, the immorality of pleasures and the lure of transgression

 Yet To pursue pleasure is to be pursued by punishment. There is no one more moralistic, more coercive, than a hedonist.

For one is hounded by the ferocity of inner morality


Happiness depends on the distance between who we are and who we should be according to the dictates of our internalised morality. We are mostly unhappy because we are rarely as we should be. When the internal authorities are so implacable and sadistic — over-severe, abusive, humiliating, for one is hounded by the ferocity of inner morality

“How Many Democrats per Republican at UC Berkeley and Stanford?”

 Daniel Klein and Andrew Western developed evidence and analysis of political affiliations in academia. Specifically, they compare professor names in 23 departments at Berkeley and Stanford with compiled political registration information in seven surrounding counties. With their matching methodology,1 they find information on 1005 professors out of 1497 investigated. For these professors, party affiliation is overwhelmingly Democratic

Right, well no surprises there.

The wide ranging  evidence supports general claims of “ideological lopsidedness in academia”. Second, they argue that this lopsidedness has a significant effect on students since academia is a “major part of political culture and it has a deep influence on students understanding of the world and of themselves.

We all know they have been indoctrinated

So all those pundits, liberals, progressives, libertarians and media graduates are conveyed out on a left leaning conveyor belt to loud hailer their progressive causes.

These soi disant  (so called) educated types then from some indoctrinated moral height feel superior enough to call others 'deplorables'

The prevalence of progressive professors in institutions of higher education, some argue, has created an environment that prioritizes political correctness above truthfulness. A report by the California Association of Scholars, put together in 2012 for the UCLA, argues that the lack of balance between liberal and conservative viewpoints has contributed to a culture that espouses socio-cultural and political apologists, whilst marginalizing those with center-right viewpoints

Non affirmative art = the pipe that is not a pipe



This is called non affirmative art it is affirming that what you presume to see
is not really what is there.

Every theory on morals requires a meta or ascendant theory

morals, ethics are things of emphasis, like art, that oh so precious bourgeois pursuit... We seem to think, when speaking about moral matters, that our sentences are judged against an independent criterion; every theory, requires a meta or ascendant theory and there is no view from nowhere . Why, why if I express a belief in heterosexual marriage that it equates to gay-bashing, why do I have to accept that I am inherently racist because I am white, why, why?

Are your morals altruistic or just ceremonial?

...there are two kinds of morals, the altruistic and the ‘ceremonial’ and we kind of know that the altruistic is self serving; but that herd; the safe place crowd are into ceremonial morals,   of standing on Mount Moral and proclaiming, because that is all you can do with moral and ethics is proclaim. What if one i  not into proclaiming, rather into expounding, you know the scienctific route.

 I  would submit ...what we have in morals and ethics is a deplorable lack of empirical controls, a kind of methodological infirmity compared say with sciences. 

With morals and ethic ...you just kind of get up on Mount Moral and, and say hey this is the right this is how we must behave...this is ceremonial morals.

When you are a failed artist of your own life - you seek out Psychoanalysis

Psychoanalysis is sought by people when they are feeling under-nourished; and this – is either because what they have been given wasn’t good enough or because there is something wrong with their capacity for transformation. In James’s terms, they are the failed artists of their own lives.

Kafka on swimming

I can swim like the others only I have a better memory than the others. I have not forgotten my former inability to swim. But since I have not forgotten it my ability to swim is of no avail and I cannot swim after all.
Kafka

The world according to Adam,,,,your desire to be understood is a mistake

Adam Philips is a psychoanalyst practising in London


We should live our lives as gratifyingly as possible, the life we have. Otherwise, we are setting ourselves up for bitterness


Our lived lives might become a protracted mourning for, or an endless trauma about, the lives we were unable to live.
On Frustration,” in praise of that emotion. Frustration makes people real to us, he says, because, in our lives, they are usually the sources of it. Indeed, frustration makes reality itself real to us. 

Consider love:
There is a world of difference between erotic and romantic daydream and actually getting together with someone; getting together is a lot more work, and is never exactly what one was hoping for. So there are three consecutive frustrations: the frustration of need, the frustration of fantasized satisfaction not working, and the frustration of satisfaction in the real world being at odds with the wished-for, fantasized satisfaction. . . . And this is when it works.
.
: “On Not Getting It.” Here he claims that we’re better off not understanding ourselves, or others. “Perhaps understanding is one thing we can do with each other—something peculiarly bewitching and entrancing—but also something that can be limiting, regressive.” Indeed, it may be risky. “The illusion of knowing another person creates the possibility, the freedom, of not knowing them; to be free, by not knowing them, to do something else with them”—that is, mistreat them, on the basis of our presumed understanding.

But the error Phillips addresses most feelingly is our wish to be understood. This, he says, can be “our most violent form of nostalgia,” a revival of our wish, as infants, to have our mother arrive the instant we cry out from pain or hunger.  Winnicott’s good-enough mother as not just good enough but the best,ign up for our daily newsletter and get the best of The New Yorker in your in-box.
ign up for our daily newsletter and get the best of The New Yorker in your in-box.

In Phillips’s view, the quest for understanding is not just an insult to emotional health; it is an intellectual error. “We think we know more about the experiences we don’t have”—the unlived life—“than about the experiences that we do have.” In the candyland of our imagining, there is no check on “the authority of inexperience,
There is nothing we could know about ourselves or another that can solve the problem that other people actually exist, and we are utterly dependent on them. . . . There is nothing to know apart from this, and everything else we know, or claim to know, or are supposed to know, or not know, follows on from this.
. People, he writes, have no discernible connection to one another. But we can give solace to those we care about by allowing them just to be, without having to explain themselves. Rilke, in a letter, made the same point: “I hold this to be the highest task for a bond between two people: that each protects the solitude of the other.”
On the contrary, the therapy he invented “weans people from their compulsion to understand and be understood; it is an ‘after-education’ in not getting it. 

 psychoanalysis must always be conjectural:

 “Psychoanalysis is only just beginning to get the kind of public scrutiny, the intelligent hostility, it needs.” 

airy pensées, : “Most infidelities aren’t ugly, they just look as though they are.”
. .”  

His  lockstep logic, can daze you and make you stop worrying about the truth. “The only phobia is the phobia of self-knowledge”; “Religion is about the struggle not to be God”; “The mother is as vulnerable to her need for her baby as the baby is to his need for her”—

. He is a visiting professor in the English department of the University of York.

His love of paradox is clearly the product of a hatred of cant let alone from common sense.  such as his claim that we should stop trying to change our lives. I have never known a person who, having quit a job or initiated a divorce, felt, afterward, that he had made a mistake. But Phillips is attacking an idée réçue, and you have to thank him for it. Likewise his notion that we should give up trying to understand ourselves. It sounds crazy, but don’t we all admire people who, instead of constantly asking themselves why they’re doing such-and-such, just get on with it?

”: the beady eye, the knowing better than you do what your thoughts are, the readiness, if you object, to say that this is just your defenses speaking. I. He sees certainty, and the questioning that leads to it, as a wall separating us . 




So how did those high morals of yours originate?

For Nietzsche, as Foucault reads him, history is the story of petty malice, of violently imposed interpretations, of vicious intentions, or high-sounding stories masking the lowest of motives. To the Nietzschean genealogist the foundation of morality, at least since Plato, is not to be found in ideal truthIt is found in pudenda origo: 'lowly origins,' catty fights, minor crudeness, ceaseless and nasty clashing of wills. The story of history is one of accidents, dispersion, chance events, lies – not the lofty development of Truth or the concrete embodiment of Freedom. For Nietzsche, the genealogist par excellence, the history of truth is the history of error and arbitrariness: 'The faith on which our belief in science rests is still a metaphysical faith . . . The Christian faith, which was also the faith of Plato, that God is Truth and truth divine . . . . But what if this equation becomes less and less credible, if the only things that may still be viewed as divine are error, blindness and lies?

To be able to speak without censorship by others - ah...what freedom.


Doubts and vulnerabilities are rare in culture that encourages invulnerability.

Doubts and vulnerabilities are rare in culture that encourages invulnerability.


Consumer Capitalism and Porn

The problem is that consumer capitalism exploits this because what it does by pretending to offer choice is that it pre-empts you finding out what you want. 

It's like the way pornography steals people's dreams. It gives you pictures of sex scenarios and so, unlike more imaginative forms of literature, stops you creating your dreams. Instead of having your own sexual fantasies the porn industry does it.

If you watch the news and remain happy then there is something wrong with you



Anybody in this culture who watches the news and can be happy - then, there's something wrong with them.

"It's very simple. The reason that there are so many depressed people is that life is so depressing for many people. It's not a mystery. There is a presumption that there is a weakness in the people who are depressed or a weakness on the part of scientific research and one of these two groups has got to pull its socks up. Scientists have got to get better and find us a drug and the depressed have got to stop malingering. The ethos is: 'Actually life is wonderful, great - get out there!' That's totally unrealistic and it's bound to fail."

Sanity involves learning to enjoy conflict, and giving up on all myths of harmony, consistency and redemption."

"Darwinian psychoanalysis would involve helping you to adapt, find a niche and enable you to reproduce," he says. "Freudian psychoanalysis suggests that there is something over and above this. These are parts of ourselves - that don't want to live, that hate our children, that want ourselves to fail. Freud is saying there is something strange about humans: they are recalcitrant to what is supposed to be their project. That seems to me to be persuasive." It also, you might notice, suggests humans have a design flaw. In the new essay collection, Side Effects, he offers the Phillipsian paradox that desire is unpredictable as well as insatiable. One might infer that an ironical appreciation of the mystifying human psyche is the best that sane people can manage.

 "What lures us into the future is the renewal of appetite. Having noticed that one's appetite is what vitalises one - Freud talks about this a bit - there could easily be the desire to frustrate oneself. The project might be to keep appetite alive. The problem is that consumer capitalism exploits this because what it does by pretending to offer choice is that it pre-empts you finding out what you want. It's like the way pornography steals people's dreams. It gives you pictures of sex scenarios and so, unlike more imaginative forms of literature, stops you creating your dreams. Instead of having your own sexual fantasies the porn industry does it.


."oubts and vulnerabilities, which is rare in culture that encourages invulnerability.#

No! To be able to speak without censorship is very pleasurable potentially. Wh
So we connive with capitalism until we can't bear it any more and wind up seeking an appointment with Phillips.
This is not like buying a fridge,"
"happiness centres" administering courses of cognitive behavioural therapy are necessary in order to cheer us up and get Britons back to work.

but really that psychoanalysis is against magic. Ideally it enables you to realise why you're prone to believe in magic and why you shouldn't, because to believe in magic is to attack your own intelligence."

Let's not be naive - life is NOT wonderful

The reason that there are so many depressed people is that life is so depressing for many people. It's not a mystery. 

There is a presumption that there is a weakness in the people who are depressed or a weakness on the part of scientific research and one of these two groups has got to pull its socks up. 

ientists have got to get better and find us a drug and the depressed have got to stop malingering. 

The ethos is: 'Actually life is wonderful, great - get out there!' That's totally unrealistic and it's bound to fail."

Darwinian psychoanalysis and Freudian psychoanalysis

Darwinian psychoanalysis would involve helping you to adapt, find a niche and enable you to reproduce," he says. "Freudian psychoanalysis suggests that there is something over and above this. These are parts of ourselves - that don't want to live, that hate our children, that want ourselves to fail. Freud is saying there is something strange about humans: they are recalcitrant to what is supposed to be their project. That seems to me to be persuasive." It also, you might notice, suggests humans have a design flaw. 

paradox that desire is unpredictable as well as insatiable. One might infer that an ironical appreciation of the mystifying human psyche is the best that sane people can manage.

Achieving your ideal can be just another excuse for self punishment

You have this goal, this attainment an ideal; however any ideal striving trying to attain it can become another excuse for punishment. 

Sanity involves learning to enjoy conflict, and giving up on all myths of harmony, consistency and redemption."

Free will ? But can you choose your parents

 Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. (



 Briefly, determinism is the view that the history of the universe is fixed: everything that happens is necessitated by what has already gone before, in such a way that nothing can happen otherwise than it does. 

According to compatibilists, freedom is compatible with determinism because freedom is essentially just a matter of not being constrained or hindered in certain ways when one acts or chooses. Suppose one is a normal adult human being in normal circumstances. Then one is able to act and choose freely. 

No one is holding a gun to one’s head. One is not being threatened. One is not drugged, or in chains, (but one is always in relative chains) or subject to a psychological compulsion or a post-hypnotic command. One is therefore wholly free to choose and act even if one’s whole physical and psychological makeup is entirely determined by things for which one is in no way ultimately responsible—starting with one’s genetic inheritance and early upbringing.

But can you choose your parents, your resulting environment, your
educational chances, your genetic makeup, you being prone to heredity diseease
N0, NO, NO well then....do you have free will?

All our acts, even a smile can be traced back to a determining source and that determining source can be traced back to a d..... force ad infinitum

We are all tech zombies now -

Image result for group on smartphones

We have been digitally lobotomized by an advertising company

Well done, human beings.