I honestly haven’t used it enough to know how well it works, but their advertisement has the cooldown thing mentioned. I hope it works for you.

Buzzkill Notification Manager can do that.

I personally do not care that much about the survival of entire species (including ours); I care more about the lives of the individuals. To illustrate this, it saddens me when we cause extinctions, but a little more because of the animals that suffered in the process and a little less about the whole “loss” of a form of life. Yet, it all is sad.

How do I deal with this climate change sadness? I guess I don’t see it separately from other sad things from humanity (and existence, but let’s focus on humanity). I have accepted the fact that most human beings are morally questionable in my book, this causes the world to be worse for everyone in it, and no amount of reasoning with most of them (about the benefit for them and others of being more conscious about their lives) will change it for now.

At some point, some have felt that a better society is just a step ahead of us because it’s relatively easy in material terms, but now I feel it much farther as the social factors are not as easy. I guess I have surrendered to a certain idea of psychological determinism. If we imagine a person has an object we want at their reach, while it’s out of our reach, and we could get it if they only cooperate, we can feel frustrated when they don’t. “Why do they make it so difficult? It’s as simple as reaching for the object and grabbing it for us. Just do it! Why are they waiting for? Ugh!”. But if we start from the idea that there’s a chance they won’t help us because they simply can’t be bothered (different reasons as to why), and that’s probably not fixable, we won’t feel that level of frustration for their inaction and we will strategize differently how to get that object.

By the way, I don’t think selfishness or self-centeredness or whatever is individualism, nor that altruism is communitarianism. I’m inclined to individualism, but that’s what makes me think that just as my life and freedom are valuable, so are others’. I do not like societies that are communitarian because they drown the individual (in false responsibilities, in fear of ostracism, etc.), and I hate that. We have one life and only one and we should be as free as possible, even if that means being unattached, different, whatever. The only rule for that freedom and for everything is ethics. And that’s the difference for me, that’s how I see it. Not individualistic people versus communitarian people, but people that live without an interest in being ethical (whatever that ends up meaning) and people who do.

So… I think I see a lot of these people and I don’t get as frustrated as before. I sigh and continue my day. Reading this last part, it reads a little stoic (learning that I cannot change these parts of society and focusing on the ones we can change). Stoicism is like the ibuprofen of life; paracetamol is pyrrhic skepticism. I’m bad at analogies, lol, but you get the point (I hope).

Prioritizing my health (including my mental health) has helped a lot. Good levels of everything in my body do wonders for my energy, but also my resilience, my mood, etc. Emotional regulation skills, combating stress… I know these are just common recommendations, but I don’t have more.

I’m sorry that you’re feeling down. It’s been a hard time…

Unaware of the concept, but it’s definitely used.

Contemporary philosophy and sciences are different from religion in some aspects. One important aspect is that these academic fields rely on rational arguments, while religion today mostly relies on traditional beliefs and faith.

Let’s say a philosopher is pondering the idea that direct experience is not necessary for knowledge. The only way to go and declare this publicly is to elaborate why, how, in a rational and rigorous manner. Most scientists work with objects that admit replicated experimentation, so they must do that, let’s say in their case, to demonstrate that a rain frog only comes out with heavy rain, but not with light rain. In contrast to these two, a religious or spiritual person might give “arguments”, but this argumentation is never to see if their belief resists examination, it is only to convince others of this belief that has been established as truth before everything else. In other words, philosophy and sciences examine their thesis (hypothesis, theory, etc.) and never assume they have the ultimate truth; on the contrary, they keep searching and exploring possibilities. Talking here about the disciplines and not the individuals who can be different from this from time to time (e.g., a dogmatic professor). Meanwhile, religion and spirituality do not have thesis or any beliefs that are susceptible to drastic change. They establish core beliefs or dogmas, and only later might try to prove them or not, depending if they find this exercise important.

Are they all ultimately unprovable statements? I guess so, but we should care how these statements come to be and how we justify them. To me, it makes an enormous difference.
I rather believe in climate change in which human action is definitely affecting the Earth (source: sciences) and the importance of stopping it as we seem to have a responsibility to others and to ourselves (source: ethics, a branch of philosophy), than to believe that there is a conspiracy to make us believe about climate change (source: perhaps imagination) and that we shouldn’t do anything anyway because there is no reason to (source: ignorance or dogmatism, honestly).

I try to remain critical of rational disciplines too, but that’s ironically done with more rationality. And here I do not mean “cold” and rigid pseudo logical analysis, but something that admits different approaches as long as they are solidly justified.

I guess it comes down to who we are. I simply cannot be convinced without this I explained. I cannot believe in religion or spiritual beliefs. I sometimes get short videos about people telling many different stories, about ghosts, ayahuasca trips where they talked to superior entities, gods and the way they know they’re real, etc. How can I believe what they perceive is real? Mere “leap of faith”? And why choose one over the other? Just because I like a particular system or because it benefits me in some way? Sorry, too arbitrary even for me that I sometimes act impulsively and capriciously. As I said, I guess the way we are allows us to accept or to deny different ways to approach existence. This is me.

Thank you for reading my stupidly long comment.

I hate these generational divides. Are we really supposed to think that a person from 1982 and a person from 1994 (both millennials) have more in common than a person from 1994 and one from 1997 (one millennial and one zoomer)? It makes no sense.

If I had to answer, I guess the closest would be Zillenial: born around the mid 90s.

My understanding is that tankies believe that groups that have partially or completely followed far-left principles should be exempt from all criticism. I disagree. As long as it is honest criticism, it should not only be allowed but encouraged.

I’ve also heard that tankies are historic revisionists to an extreme. While I agree Western history is not telling us the real version of things, I don’t think other countries are either. I won’t say that an event happened one way or the other just because country A or country B says so. If historians and other experts are still debating an event and its details, I prefer to watch from a distance as I have no way to contribute to those debates.

So… no.

This might sound pedantic, but it isn’t, it was actually naive: I expected a better environment in academia when I was young.

Why? Because academia is supposedly full of bright people, and I assumed they would be bright enough to be cooperative (because academia advances more when we are, and they supposedly love knowledge); unattached from superficiality (like judging people by their looks, money, etc., because they should know an interesting person can come in any “package”); relatively ethical (as bright people should figure out something close to the categorical imperative, although with unique details); a non-dogmatic, eager to learn and correct their ideas —over preferring recognition and pettiness— attitude (again, just because I assumed their intelligence must guide them towards appreciating knowledge and authenticity over much more ephemeral and possibly worthless things such as prizes, fame, etc.).

I was wrong, so wrong. It’s painful to remember how I felt when I realized it…

But I think the premises weren’t entirely off, I just imagined people much wiser and more intelligent than they are, myself included. Anyway, I fully understand why others are shocked too.

I thought it was him, William Whewell, in response to an almost rant from Samuel Taylor Coleridge about “natural philosophers” (today’s scientists) not deserving to be called “philosophers”.

I just googled it and found:

Coleridge stood and insisted that men of science in the modern day should not be referred to as philosophers since they were typically digging, observing, mixing or electrifying—that is, they were empirical men of experimentation and not philosophers of ideas.

[…]

There was much grumbling among those in attendance, when Whewell masterfully suggested that in “analogy with artist we form scientist.” Curiously this almost perfect linguistic accommodation of workmanship and inspiration, of the artisanal and the contemplative, of the everyday and the universal –was not readily accepted.

Yeah, that was the story I’d heard.

Another source says:

Coleridge declared that although he was a true philosopher, the term philosopher should not be applied to the association’s members. William Whewell responded by coining the word scientist on the spot. He suggested

by analogy with artist, we may form scientist.

It’s funny because nobody remembers S. T. Coleridge as a philosopher but only as a poet. I’ve read that his philosophical writings were like an eccentric and almost immature version of German idealism. The thing that haunts me is that famous F. Schelling is well read but often misunderstood, so if they both were part of the romantic movement and they were both close to idealism, it could be that they both suffer the same fate.

Anyway, I digressed. That was the story I knew. Basically, a gatekeeping poet separated philosophers and natural philosophers.

It’s even curious because there are rumours about men like Coleridge being “half-mad”, and recently there have been studies on it. It would be ridiculous (just as history tends to be) if an old mad poet had divided these branches of knowledge on a fit of bad moods.

Most psychologists […].

And yet for some reason philosophers […] and artists […].

Why are you careful/nuanced with psychologists but dump philosophers and artists in the same bag as if they all do the same?

I see this a lot. The other day, I was watching a science video. Same thing: “some physicists believe…”, “other physicists…”, but “philosophers say…”.

Do you think philosophy and art (disciplines that by their very nature are diverse and creative) create only one type of people? I mean, Karl Popper is a philosopher against Freud, you just said it. You could find many philosophers opposed to Freud, indifferent, critical, in agreement, etc. Artists are the same, very different people among them.

Now, the real question should be why is Freud popular amongst some artists and philosophers and other non-psychologists, especially in certain regions like France and Argentina, or certain traditions like old continental philosophy. And that’s probably the beginning of an answer at the same time: a strong tradition of psychoanalysis within certain circles. Also, a matter of coherence or lack of. For example, if you start reading French existentialism and keep reframing certain aspects of reality, you may find yourself inclined to epistemological paradigms that do not oppose psychoanalytical theories, so you could combine them if you want to. If you start denying materialism in some ways, you may end up denying biological explanations of psychopathological phenomena, so Freud could be a good substitute (or not, depending on the person).

I guess if I were to give a psychological reductionist answer, Freud and similar authors appeal to part of the population that is skeptical of conventional models, the status quo, scientism, hard materialism, etc.

French and Spanish would have been better.

I don’t know, the world is depressing. Recently, details about Palestine have been disheartening…

Communities for underground music and the one for roller skating.

The suicide rates have become one of the most popular arguments, which is a shame because it is incomplete. More men complete the suicidal act, but more women attempt it (apparently, they just own less guns, less substances in the garage, etc.). In other words—because I explain like sh*t in English: women are more suicidal, but less lethal in their attempts.

Both sexes, and intersex people, suffer a lot. The various genders suffer a lot.

I know influencers that talk about this problem without being Andrew Tate, but when I recommend them, I get downvoted as if they were worth nothing. I disagree. Of course, it is not a solution because life is always hard and confusing, but to listen to leftist men who understand feminism and other current social movements, and speak of the role of masculinity today considering those is very refreshing and it definitely helps and it is a step forward.

In a nutshell, they talk about caring about mental health. Many of them already are through their own journeys via psychotherapy or other means of introspection and emotional awareness. They talk about feelings and beliefs within the people that were told that they need to be a cartoon, an action figure, because vulnerability is for the lesser sex and a real man™ despises those things. They talk about healing, understanding, cooperation, etc. I don’t know if you’re a leftist, but that’s behind other concepts such as anarchy or social welfare. It is nice to see the line of thought from healing the personal to healing the communal, and viceversa.

So… yeah, ostracism is not the solution. It’s funny because I’ve suffered from agoraphobia and things like that in other moments of my life, and I understand the dysphoric feeling brought by just thinking about society. I have rejected society time and time again, but we are social creatures and we need each other.
I need you because writing this comment is something that I feel I have to do. You’re giving me some minutes of purpose and even hope that I can make you feel less alone in this world. We both need the person that is making Lemmy possible, and our instances, and many other people on that chain. We like having friends and romantic relationships and random interactions on social media. We like going to events and activities in our towns or cities.

As I see it, If society is not ‘rejectable’ without hurting ourselves and others, the next thing to do would be to interact healthily with our fellow human beings. It is an available journey, there are people willing to help in each step, but you need to trust and trust is hard as f*ck.

Also a video about how that’s the worst thing you can do for your health with no actual advice to correct it.

The study of psychopathology in any form, particularly of severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder type I.

I like philosophy, mathematics, and arts more, but that would be my favorite field of science.

Exactly. I often post walls of text, and it is probably because it takes me a lot of words to express ideas in English, but I also feel like I cannot discuss something deeply in whatever number of characters are admitted now on microblogging. Forums and such are great and I love reading long posts and comments. Also, I get lost in who is replying to what on those sites, but here it is literally linear!

Technically, Mexico has had only two presidents from a right-wing party. Before, they were from the centrist party. The current president is a very well known leftist.

The country was bombarded with religion for centuries, so maybe you are thinking of that, but even so, the majority support a version of religion that mixes a “social concern for the poor and political liberation for oppressed peoples” with spirituality. It is similar to the recent declarations of Pope Francis about Marxists and Christians having a common goal It is called liberation theology.

Also, Mexico tried to legalize drugs back in 1940. It was promoted by a psychiatrist that informed the government that substance abuse was a mental disorder, which was very progressive for the era. Here is the story.

Of course, if you dig deeper, you’ll know the United States basically coerced Mexico into criminalizing drugs again.

Around half the population still supports drug legalization, even after years of propaganda. The commenter below was shocked about abortion legalization. Abortion is legal in many places. Same-sex marriage is also legal, even in some more right-leaning states. A couple years ago, a transgender clinic with free care was opened in Mexico City. Similarly, free healthcare and many other welfare initiatives such as free education (including universities) are common and not negotiable for the average Mexican.

So, yeah, I guess you’ll find homophobic old people, religious nuts, or lately, U.S.-influenced right-wing supporters, but Mexico is overall progressive as I see it. Even historically:

Slave abolition was one of the first things Mexico did as an independent country, around 1810-1817. The first black president in 1829. Safe place for U.S. slaves to escape and live as free people during the 19th century. First native (indigenous) president in 1858. The Constitution has been protecting native populations’ rights since 1917. During the 20th century, there were big movements in favor of socialism (e.g., agrarian socialists called zapatistas, or students’ movements in the National Autonomous University of Mexico). The list goes on… The first woman president is probably happening this year.

I hope this puts things into perspective, and sorry for infodumping!

I’m in that demographic (born in the 90s), and my friends are definitely apathetic/uninterested in trying new platforms. I am trying to convince them of alternatives 🫡, wish me luck.

I’d like to prevent many tragedies, but I’m not sure a single book would change history. I can actually imagine it going very wrong…

— Mein Führer, this book here explains our theories about the origin of the German population and about the natural maliciousness of Jews are wrong.
— Let me see… Lies, all lies! This here is evidence of their pervasive propaganda against the aryan people.

— Witchfinder General, a book had arrived… from the unknown.
— What kind of sorcery is this? “Witches do not exist”. “…These trials were the result of ignorance and greed”. What in the name of God is this blasphemy? A powerful witch is near and these are her evil tricks!

So I need to think of a better plan, lol.