psycho-philospohical questions that need answering

Post Reply New Topic

this post may seem strange. it probably is. i am a strange person, i'm cool with that. i do have a burning question, however, and i thought this the best place to put it, in the hopes that through discussion with as many others as possible i might gain a vital new insight on this issue. i need to understand something, for personal as well as ethical, spiritual, and philosophical reasons. i need to try to understand.

there is a type of person that exists in the world. we have all encountered them. they have been and are still known by many different labels--psychopath, sociopath, narcissist...but i think when it comes down to it the basics they are the same, fundamentally. for the sake of this post, anyway.

these people, the fact that they exist and why, the nature of what they are, and how to deal with them in my way of viewing the world as well as in my own personal life--these things are what i need to understand. is there anyone that knows and can explain these things?

this is some of what i have come to understand of this type, the 'cold' ones:

when they see pain in others (and they do, they are very observant of other people) they do not feel any immediate desire to alleviate that pain in some way, if possible. relieving/removing/alleviating the pain of others is not a priority for them. in that sense, they have no concept of mercy. the only important consideration for them is how the other's pain impacts themselves, and how to navigate and exploit the situation to the best possible outcome for themselves. this motivation is often completely singular. the other person's pain is only important in that context, and that context alone. for the pain itself, they feel nothing at all. it is meaningless to them in every other way. it makes them feel nothing in and of itself.

looking out for number one is truly their most basic, driving force, and strictly dictates every decision they make (all of which are highly calculated, though the complexity of the calculations depends on the individual's intelligence and imaginative capacity). the idea of imaginative capacity in a mind that cares nothing for the feelings of others is truly frightening, even grotesque, to me. something very deep and basic in me rejects that as not only grossly unnatural but also unfair, unjust.

i am not speaking only of the obvious injustices produced by those who conduct themselves through life with no true appreciation of the needs of others, but the innate injustice of a reality that allows such people to exist at all--and not only unjust for us, the "chess pieces", having to suffer the various forms of their callousness, but unjust for themselves, as well. there is injustice (at least there certainly feels to be) in the very existence of these people, who are condemned and damned by their own natures, for whatever reason or by whatever cause.

is there a true person somewhere inside, suffering the loneliness and isolation that is the product of their behavior and wiring? are they lonely or suffering at all, from this absence of empathic concern? are they lonely without that sense of mercy, are they aware of what they lack? or do they simply exist: surviving day to day the best they can by exploiting every possible person and circumstance to the best of their ability; serving their own interests, with no concept of lacking anything at all; thinking their way is the best way, the only way, and so simply accepting it. is this the truth of these people?

this question is haunting me lately, most particularly in some pressing family issues, and it's a question that i can't get a straight answer about from anyone. does anyone understand these people, the classic narcissists/sociopaths/whatever trendy new psycho-meme applies here, basically? is there anyone here who can shed some light on this situation for me? i need to understand how this can be, if these things are true. i know what i am asking is strange, and possibly there is no answer, or no way to know. i guess what i am really asking for is a way to accept this, since people like this are an inescapable aspect of reality, of this life. does anyone have any experience with this, any thing they've seen or can explain that will help this make sense to me? are there others out there like me that agonise over this question? how do you deal with the reality of mercilessness?

and also.....are these people lost? are they lost causes, write-offs? is there any way to really know?

i feel i should add as one final thing that i am aware i am generalising in that there is a spectrum represented here in the group i am discussing. some are more extreme than others--i'm not really interested in the psychological distinctions and categorisations involved so much as i am the implications of this "aspect of humanity", or "phenomenon", or whatever else you want to call it that applies. i want to understand the meaning of these people, if that makes sense. this is the best way i know how to put it into words.

any input, suggestions, perspectives, experiences, wisdom, corrections, etc etc are all greatly appreciated....will someone expand
on this, please?

Genuine psychopaths usually do not think they are messed up, but rather upon hearing about their condition, they are shocked that not everybody else is like this. Not only that, but they are terrible at getting treatment, as to them, they are normal.

Narcissists find it impossible to find out that they have a problem, hence they are narcissists. They are usually incurable as they are already fine, and I think some believe that they cannot psychologically survive without the emotional support of arrogance.

In both cases, narcissism(Narcissistic Personality Disorder) and psycho/sociopathy(antisocial personality disorder) can refer to personality disorders if used in a medical setting(common parlance can just mean an abundance of these traits). Personality disorders are known for basically being untreatable, as there is no baseline healthy state to refer back to in order to construct a functional personality, very few people who have personality disorders think the seen disorder is wrong as it is how they structure their reality, not only that, but given that the personality disorder inhibits functioning, creating a relationship to cure this is difficult as it requires doing something already difficult and it can be interfered with by the emergence of real problems that are caused by the personality disorder.

As far as I know, I haven't met such a person, although I have a fear that one ex-friend, who I loved very much for a short time, may have had tendencies. I realised later that she was extremely manipulative, maybe without even being aware of it herself, and she really seemed to think she was doing good (or maybe she was just very good at projecting this). She had an intellectual system of morals that she followed - she had studied philosophy a lot and morals was her favorite subject. Perhaps this was because of a lack of the natural moral system that most of us share. She hurt me a lot, and blamed me for her guilt, although I do wonder whether she really felt guilt, or used it as a tool to make me feel worse.

I have read that sociopaths are quite common (at least 1% of the population). It has been said that they lack both morals and empathy. The article I read this in (sorry no link) said that the lack of empathy was different from that experienced by autistics, and the accompanying lack of morals was the important thing for sociopathy. However, I think this view is wrong - if right it implies that autistics are half way there, which worries me - not because I think its true, but because of what other people might then conclude.

I think there is no link at all. In fact the contrary - I think that sociopaths can experience empathy, but they process it in the wrong way - instead of eliciting feelings of compassion, it is used as a tool for manipulation and even pleasure at another's pain, in extreme situations going as far as murder. Lack of empathy, in the autistic way, is a complete lack of understanding what another person feels. An autistic, also lacking morals, would not be a sociopath I think - may be a dangerous, unthinking, selfish person, but would not take pleasure in another's pain as the empathic understanding of the pain other people can suffer would not be there.

Why are such people here? Basically because they profit enough from society to keep their genes going. The frequency in the population is probably pretty steady - any more and the rest of us would be less trusting and more difficult to manipulate and they would lose out. Any less and they would have too much advantage and expand more easily. This type of thing (selfish/altruistic) has been computer modelled and found to be evolutionarily stable.

What to do with them? I don't know. I don't know if inside there is a lonely person and I'm not sure that its ever possible to tell as they are supposedly very good at deception and lying. I think that they can suffer - if they come off worst in a situation, although I guess it will be self pity more than anything else. Most of them do OK in society because threat of punishment stops them from ever doing anything really extreme. Maybe if they could be identified as young children, they could be brought up (brainwashed?) in such a way to not be too much trouble as adults.

I am convinced that people who are gay or have asperger's are wired that way, and that trying to force them into being 'normal' is a prescription for repression. In such cases, live and let live is an obvious solution.

I am not sure if sociopaths, pedophiles, and others are also wired that way or can be rehabilitated, or if society simply needs to protect itself from these people. It is perfectly reasonable to demand that they behave within norms and not hurt others, but it is not reasonable to expect them to comply with such demands.

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i actually have quite a strong background in psychology and i understand the concepts and categorisations, like i said. what i'm looking for here basically is the philosophical purpose of these people. i don't like to approach this subject from a clinical standpoint because it feels limiting. using clinical terms and a clinical approach when it comes to concepts like evil (because i suppose in a way that is what i am truly asking about) just doesn't feel right to me....there is so much more there than just cognitive processes and conditioned responses--i am asking about human nature, and specifically those who don't seem to share that basic emotional connection to other human beings based solely on the fact that we are human beings. i've read the articles and the textbooks--i haven't found satisfactory answers there.

mostly i feel that the study of psychology as we have known it so far is a way of attempting to categorise, label, and so somehow master, another greater system (human consciousness) that is so complex as to be impossible to understand (for the most part). ...so a couple of old white dudes in little spectacles back in the day sat down and said "we need a way to wrap up everything we don't understand about ourselves in a pretty little box, all nicely organised and with clearly delineated limits, so the masses will be pacified and we can all sleep at night"--and hence was born the 'science' of psychology.

human consciousness is not just about brain and mind and cognitive function. it is about essence, about soul--it is about life.

there is more to this than personality disorders and inherent pathology. this is so much bigger than that. it's the bigger picture i need to understand.

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i'm sorry you had this experience. i can relate to the questioning (did she really feel guilty, or was it just another tool to hurt you?) i have asked myself many of the same questions, many times. it is horrible to know these people first hand. to live with them is hell. the reason i started this post is because i have at least 2 of these types in my family, both of which are in my immediate family: one of which i haven't had any contact with in a very long time, and one whom i only recently broke contact with.



i agree with you here, and there is a lot more going on then just "a lack of morals" when it comes to sociopaths, and there are certainly greater distinctions b/w sociopathy and autism than that alone. i think there is a lot of misunderstanding in this area and it could cause problems for autistics in the future if it is not rectified.



also agree with this, but i would make one differentiation--the lack of empathy in autistics isn't complete, but rather spontaneous, as in we lack spontaneous empathy, which is very different from lacking any kind of empathy at all. in the moment-to-moment dealings between people, autistics may have little-to-no immediate, instinctive awareness of the other person's emotional/mental state, but we can become quite adept at processing situations empathically using our intellect to compensate where instinct is lacking, and given a little more time. i personally have spent many years specifically studying people in this way, and without tooting my own horn too much, would say i am rather good at it. it is one of my special interests. people (myself included) are often surprised and baffled by how accurately i can gage their emotional state from very little extraneous information. it can be learned.



i'm sure you are right here as well, but this is what i meant about how the clinical or 'scientific' way of approaching this issue just doesn't seem to address something essential. it sounds to me more like a rationalisation than an explanation of why. it can't be as ugly and as simple as "they are biologically and evolutionarily viable".

thank you for the suggestion claire. i have spent many hours myself studying just as you say, and not just psychological texts but the humanities and literature most especially. i guess i just needed to have a more direct dialogue on the subject. some things you just can't learn from books--especially when it comes to human nature.

shouldn't it be muddy? life is muddy, reality is muddy. staying inside the lines has never been my thing when it comes to thinking. those giant muddy indefinable concepts are exactly what i like to explore, and how i tend to approach my reasoning (as contradictory as that sounds). psychology and philosophy are indivisible, symbiotic. why they are separate studies is actually beyond me.

Oh, sorry, I just focused upon the questions of whether or not they could be cured.


What is the philosophical purpose of people in general? We cannot answer the particular question if there is no answer to the general question.


Hmm... well, I'd think it depends on what you want. After all, the clinical standpoint just adds a layer to a multi-layered situation.

Asking about the nature of evil? Hmm... well, I am used to seeing evil from the aspect of theodicy(the problem of evil), so to me there are 2 responses to the existence of evil: (a) it is beneficial in a particular instance but still out of accord with morality, or (b) it is that which should not exist. From a standpoint of evil applied to psychology, evil personalities are sicknesses, and evil people are monsters.

Yes, I don't see a question that immediately pops up when people fail to show a certain kind of response.


Aren't most studies a "way of attempting to categorise, label, and so somehow master, another greater system". I mean, I do not think that a study can avoid this kind of effort and avoid creating lines. I mean just by asking a question and trying to get answers, you are creating analytical structures to categorize and label reality.


Well, a major issue is one of how to understand essence, the soul, and life. I do think that clinical psychology can potentially provide data about these matters, just as experience lets us know about ourselves, but beyond that, I am not sure that a *lot* can be said. As you are talking about a perception that none of us has perceived, beyond that it is hard to say much without positing a personness and something that all beings with this personness all have in common other than consciousness.

also to be fair, language itself is very limiting. to communicate these complex intricate ideas we have to try to slap silly little symbols on them that are supposed to encapsulate all of their meaning. this obviously is impossible. i try to be aware of this problem when i write, but i know that because of the implicit limits, and my own inherent difficulties with language b/c of my AS, there are going to be things left out, things described incompletely or inaccurately, etc.--and i also know that only so much can be communicated and understood with language. there are aspects of life that are beyond language. either way, i don't shy away from the muddy stuff it's the exploration that's important, right?

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But language cannot be both muddy and meaningful, and there is where the problem emerges. Psychology and philosophy are separate studies because philosophy tries to speak about things outside of mental states. Whether they do or even can succeed is a matter of overlap between the two fields, but I think most philosophers and psychologists think they can.(however, there are philosophers who are negative to philosophy)

I think the problem is that you're getting a bit too far ahead of yourself here. Before trying to figure out what the 'philosophical purpose' of such people is, you have to first establish whether there's a philosophical purpose at all, not just for psychopaths, but for what you deem 'regular' human response too. Personally, from what I see it's simply a difference in consciousness and perception akin to an aspie, someone who was blind at birth, or someone who can visualize abstract physics in their head, etc. It hasn't been philosophically established yet (and I doubt even can be) that one is inherently better than the other, that any of these states have any more, less, or different purpose than any other, or that any of them have any purpose at all, for that matter.

Perhaps the 'basic emotional connection to other human beings based solely on the fact that we are human beings' that you covet is the flawed way of perceiving things. Personally, I do not put much stock in such a notion... I acknowledge that it exists for most people, but to me it seems like an inherent bias/prejudice of the human race and is not grounded in logic or reality, distorting truth rather than providing it. Human beings are not inherently good or deserving of empathy simply because they are 'human', whatever that abstract term may mean philosophically. I prefer to judge people based on their actions and the thought processes and ideals they demonstrate, not the elitist/pseudoreligious notion that the mere fact that we are a particular animal species makes us entitled to special and unique privileges. Such notions run contrary to wholesome moral thinking, not for it.

It's impossible to construct a second floor on a building that doesn't yet have a first floor. Hence, in order to be able to look at the question of the philosophical purpose of the psychopath, you first need to question the assumptions through which you divide these people from the rest. Once you've established a valid philosophical framework from which to proceed, you can then apply it to the question at hand.

so we shouldn't try?



this is a good point. clinical understanding is certainly not without its merits, and each facet through which we explore these questions yields valuable insight. i guess you could say that for me that perspective feels exhausted, for now at least.



i suppose to clarify then i am asking about evil on a more individual, personal level, rather than evil as a social issue--does this make sense? i feel i should also state that by 'evil' i mean "the absence of love for humanity in an individual, the kind of love that recognises instinctively/intuitively any and all other human individuals as valuable and worthy of love, and having a personal stake in that value"



not sure what part you're responding to, here.



another good point. i suppose i was just sniping at the arrogance of academia in general, the pompous rigidity that exists in many spheres, that seeming need to attempt to dominate and control our universe through knowledge. i know this applies to all fields of study, not just psychology. my own personal bias, i guess. i'm not explaining myself well, here, i know.



i'm not sure what you mean by "a perception that none of us has perceived"? can you explain that further? sorry, i'm a bit slow today (very tired )