I think moral philosophy can be bad for mental health sometimes. If you have principles and are consistent, you’re going to adopt some socially undesirable views. Coercive eugenics seems clearly immoral so perhaps that’s just an anxiety thing about having bad ideas in your mind. My advice: don’t start reading about existential risk if you’re an anxious person.
One thing that strikes me from this letter is how damaging third party aid/assistance can be mentally. Reading "whether I was immoral for existing because of my disabilities, and obsession about being a certain productive level." it occurred to me that someone need only consider that possibility if someone else supports their existence without regard to their productivity. Conversely, someone who must pay their own way, as it were, need not worry about that because, well, if they can pay their own way they clearly are productive enough. It is only when "productive enough" is decoupled from whether or not they can continue to exist that it becomes a worry.
Of course, a 14 year old isn't going to go out and get a full time job and support themselves these days, but it does highlight a subtle mentally damaging aspect of socialism at large but just the smaller issue of dependency on others, voluntary or not: the dependent never really knows where they stand. For many that might not matter, but for those concerned with questions of their own self worth, that can be a really rough position to be in.
I had a lot go down this semester where I left a club (cult) that made up 90% of my friend group. My first semester, I got up at 4:30am every morning, went to the gym, came home, drank a green smoothie, and got to work on my early graduation grind. I interacted mostly with my roommate and professors.
The second semester, I joined a club that I erected as one of the pillars/compartments of my life which I was to subsume my individuality to entirely.
The third was dealing with the fallout of leaving after a difficult infatuation.
Throughout this time, it's been remarkably difficult for me to conceive that I had friends who were sad if I left. Friends who spend time with me every week, who've cleaned up after my tears, who vocally express that they care about me. Any superlative attributed to me was immediately rejected by my brain. If everyone says I'm [positive characteristic, especially a strong one], then they just must be wrong. The main way I accept having virtues is by picturing myself on a statistical distribution and noting how far right I lie. The things I rationally know are different than what I believe; this is a mantra I mention frequently. I thought it was some underlying attachment-related insecurity, but this is an interesting new consideration...
I viewed myself as heartless, rational, and individualistic, and refused to believe that I felt emotion. I still kind of do. Even when I wrote an anguished ten page love letter, cried over small interactions, and obsessively talked about the same situation over and over and how much it hurt me, if you *asked* me if it hurt me, I would instinctively think: "nah, I'm heartless!" It's a huge dissonance, but I think it kept me safe. I have an extremely strong tendency to intellectualize my emotions (as an alternative to feeling them, perhaps!) because "thinking is easier than feeling." Thinking also felt... morally superior? Less contemptible?
The utilitarian/genetics thing is also fascinating. In the 6 month process of ending my relationship with my ex of three years, I wrestled with the idea of prioritizing my pesky emotions.
1. I was *deeply* hurting/traumatizing someone who cared so much about me
2. He was one of the most brilliant people I've ever met --> enormous net utility for the world. ie with me by his side, he would be this incredible force for good/progress and the only price I had to pay was to press a button, lock myself down against my intuitive will, and be the martyr.
Pretty much no one normal actually agrees with this logic, even at surface level. When they hear of the less savory parts of the relationship, and the guilt I still faced leaving it, they're beyond appalled.
For a number of years I was very concerned with the idea of "are my genes worth spreading on?" Am I attractive and intelligent enough to justify having kids, and should I feel guilty for their shortcomings? To this day, I think a *lot* about having kids, though in a healthier light. Once again, the way I view genetics and children is not one most my friends can even comprehend.
FWIW: I'm 99th percentile Extraversion and I'm actually very good at socializing. I'm a great armchair therapist because I can articulate precisely how and why people feel a certain way, and trod gently on their insecurities, but now I wonder if that skill comes from intellectualizing my emotions (systematizing) instead of empathizing.
I'm a liberal arts major (wuss level math skills) who is more fascinated by economics than every econ major I've met at college. I've noticed that when I write, I blur the lines of personal and professional/academic: I wax poetic about economics in flowery prose, and I'll apply cold utilitarian logic when reprimanding myself for feeling human emotion.
Also far far more libertarian than p much all my peers, especially the women. (Being extremely low in Agreeableness probably helped). This may be of interest: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3424229/
So, what do we think about *non-coercive* (voluntarist) eugenics, which basically has exactly the same aims as the education infrastructure claims (well-rounded, pro-social, future-oriented creative thinkers), with the slightly important difference that there's good evidence it'll work?
huh, interesting (and cool!) to see philosophy improve someone's mental health that way.
I didn't realize there were people who wanted to negative eugenics themselves out of existence. I've always been pro-positive eugenics (as long as a central authority doesn't get sole discretion over it) but I've never been pro-negative eugenics.
Being a shy person, I think your post, "The Modality of Monogamy" would have made my high school years much better had it existed and I read it. I sent it to my sons ad others. Boys lie a lot about girls and can make other boys feel rejected.
Thanks so much to the author for their bravery, and to Bryan for posting this.
As those of you who have read Losing My Religions know, I have dealt with depression and suicidal thoughts. A relatively long time ago, I realized I should not have been born. But I decided that being here changes things, so I need to do the best I can to reduce suffering instead of dwelling on what "should" have happened.
I've changed my philosophy a lot, including recently. I think uncertainty should humble us all.
I think moral philosophy can be bad for mental health sometimes. If you have principles and are consistent, you’re going to adopt some socially undesirable views. Coercive eugenics seems clearly immoral so perhaps that’s just an anxiety thing about having bad ideas in your mind. My advice: don’t start reading about existential risk if you’re an anxious person.
That was the most unusual thing I have read in a long time.
You meant to tell me that economics *doesn't* act as your therapist? Fascinating.
One thing that strikes me from this letter is how damaging third party aid/assistance can be mentally. Reading "whether I was immoral for existing because of my disabilities, and obsession about being a certain productive level." it occurred to me that someone need only consider that possibility if someone else supports their existence without regard to their productivity. Conversely, someone who must pay their own way, as it were, need not worry about that because, well, if they can pay their own way they clearly are productive enough. It is only when "productive enough" is decoupled from whether or not they can continue to exist that it becomes a worry.
Of course, a 14 year old isn't going to go out and get a full time job and support themselves these days, but it does highlight a subtle mentally damaging aspect of socialism at large but just the smaller issue of dependency on others, voluntary or not: the dependent never really knows where they stand. For many that might not matter, but for those concerned with questions of their own self worth, that can be a really rough position to be in.
This is... very interesting. Wow.
I had a lot go down this semester where I left a club (cult) that made up 90% of my friend group. My first semester, I got up at 4:30am every morning, went to the gym, came home, drank a green smoothie, and got to work on my early graduation grind. I interacted mostly with my roommate and professors.
The second semester, I joined a club that I erected as one of the pillars/compartments of my life which I was to subsume my individuality to entirely.
The third was dealing with the fallout of leaving after a difficult infatuation.
Throughout this time, it's been remarkably difficult for me to conceive that I had friends who were sad if I left. Friends who spend time with me every week, who've cleaned up after my tears, who vocally express that they care about me. Any superlative attributed to me was immediately rejected by my brain. If everyone says I'm [positive characteristic, especially a strong one], then they just must be wrong. The main way I accept having virtues is by picturing myself on a statistical distribution and noting how far right I lie. The things I rationally know are different than what I believe; this is a mantra I mention frequently. I thought it was some underlying attachment-related insecurity, but this is an interesting new consideration...
I viewed myself as heartless, rational, and individualistic, and refused to believe that I felt emotion. I still kind of do. Even when I wrote an anguished ten page love letter, cried over small interactions, and obsessively talked about the same situation over and over and how much it hurt me, if you *asked* me if it hurt me, I would instinctively think: "nah, I'm heartless!" It's a huge dissonance, but I think it kept me safe. I have an extremely strong tendency to intellectualize my emotions (as an alternative to feeling them, perhaps!) because "thinking is easier than feeling." Thinking also felt... morally superior? Less contemptible?
The utilitarian/genetics thing is also fascinating. In the 6 month process of ending my relationship with my ex of three years, I wrestled with the idea of prioritizing my pesky emotions.
1. I was *deeply* hurting/traumatizing someone who cared so much about me
2. He was one of the most brilliant people I've ever met --> enormous net utility for the world. ie with me by his side, he would be this incredible force for good/progress and the only price I had to pay was to press a button, lock myself down against my intuitive will, and be the martyr.
Pretty much no one normal actually agrees with this logic, even at surface level. When they hear of the less savory parts of the relationship, and the guilt I still faced leaving it, they're beyond appalled.
For a number of years I was very concerned with the idea of "are my genes worth spreading on?" Am I attractive and intelligent enough to justify having kids, and should I feel guilty for their shortcomings? To this day, I think a *lot* about having kids, though in a healthier light. Once again, the way I view genetics and children is not one most my friends can even comprehend.
FWIW: I'm 99th percentile Extraversion and I'm actually very good at socializing. I'm a great armchair therapist because I can articulate precisely how and why people feel a certain way, and trod gently on their insecurities, but now I wonder if that skill comes from intellectualizing my emotions (systematizing) instead of empathizing.
I'm a liberal arts major (wuss level math skills) who is more fascinated by economics than every econ major I've met at college. I've noticed that when I write, I blur the lines of personal and professional/academic: I wax poetic about economics in flowery prose, and I'll apply cold utilitarian logic when reprimanding myself for feeling human emotion.
Also far far more libertarian than p much all my peers, especially the women. (Being extremely low in Agreeableness probably helped). This may be of interest: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3424229/
So, what do we think about *non-coercive* (voluntarist) eugenics, which basically has exactly the same aims as the education infrastructure claims (well-rounded, pro-social, future-oriented creative thinkers), with the slightly important difference that there's good evidence it'll work?
huh, interesting (and cool!) to see philosophy improve someone's mental health that way.
I didn't realize there were people who wanted to negative eugenics themselves out of existence. I've always been pro-positive eugenics (as long as a central authority doesn't get sole discretion over it) but I've never been pro-negative eugenics.
Hey anonymous author, FWIW you sound like a person I would like a lot, just based on what you wrote here.
There are memetic evolutionary reasons why most people have the morals they do. You seem to have discovered some of them.
I think I would get along very well too.
Being a shy person, I think your post, "The Modality of Monogamy" would have made my high school years much better had it existed and I read it. I sent it to my sons ad others. Boys lie a lot about girls and can make other boys feel rejected.
Thanks so much to the author for their bravery, and to Bryan for posting this.
As those of you who have read Losing My Religions know, I have dealt with depression and suicidal thoughts. A relatively long time ago, I realized I should not have been born. But I decided that being here changes things, so I need to do the best I can to reduce suffering instead of dwelling on what "should" have happened.
I've changed my philosophy a lot, including recently. I think uncertainty should humble us all.
https://www.losingmyreligions.net/
Dunno if there’s anyone moderating, but this really should be a ban.
*bisexual*