Hubert Dreyfus, Sean Dorrance Kelly. All Things Shining
—
«Although it is not at the center of our conception of ourselves, the idea that we should recognize and be grateful for favorable events when they occur is not entirely alien to us. The Greeks experienced this phenomenon in a particular way, however. It was not just that they felt lucky when something they experienced to be beyond their control turned out well for them. It was that they experienced these favorable events as meaningful for, and directed at, them.
To see this point, consider the difference between the Homeric Greeks and the Romans living in the second and first centuries BC. The Romans took very seriously the importance of luck in their lives, and they personified this force in the goddess Fortuna. Often represented as blind—indicating that her choices are indifferent to those whom they affect—Fortuna has no natural precursor in the Homeric world. The goddess Tyche, who is typically considered the Greek equivalent of Fortuna, doesn’t begin to play an important role in Greek mythology until the Hellenistic age, at least five hundred years after Homer.
The distinction between Fortuna and the Homeric Greek gods is important: if Fortune shines upon a Roman citizen then the proper sentiment is not gratitude, since Fortune didn’t have him in view at all. Rather, to experience one’s life as ruled by Fortune is, at best, to cultivate a kind of stoicism and reserve. The Roman Stoic stalwartly endures the vicissitudes of life, inoculating himself against fortunes and misfortunes alike. This kind of reserve, of willfully enforced detachment, could not be further from the Homeric conception of excellence in a life. And yet, there is something familiar about it in our secular age. The notion that blind luck determines the course of our lives leads quickly to the nihilistic idea that our lives have no meaning. Roman Stoicism is grandfather to the nihilism of the secular age.»
—
«Although it is not at the center of our conception of ourselves, the idea that we should recognize and be grateful for favorable events when they occur is not entirely alien to us. The Greeks experienced this phenomenon in a particular way, however. It was not just that they felt lucky when something they experienced to be beyond their control turned out well for them. It was that they experienced these favorable events as meaningful for, and directed at, them.
To see this point, consider the difference between the Homeric Greeks and the Romans living in the second and first centuries BC. The Romans took very seriously the importance of luck in their lives, and they personified this force in the goddess Fortuna. Often represented as blind—indicating that her choices are indifferent to those whom they affect—Fortuna has no natural precursor in the Homeric world. The goddess Tyche, who is typically considered the Greek equivalent of Fortuna, doesn’t begin to play an important role in Greek mythology until the Hellenistic age, at least five hundred years after Homer.
The distinction between Fortuna and the Homeric Greek gods is important: if Fortune shines upon a Roman citizen then the proper sentiment is not gratitude, since Fortune didn’t have him in view at all. Rather, to experience one’s life as ruled by Fortune is, at best, to cultivate a kind of stoicism and reserve. The Roman Stoic stalwartly endures the vicissitudes of life, inoculating himself against fortunes and misfortunes alike. This kind of reserve, of willfully enforced detachment, could not be further from the Homeric conception of excellence in a life. And yet, there is something familiar about it in our secular age. The notion that blind luck determines the course of our lives leads quickly to the nihilistic idea that our lives have no meaning. Roman Stoicism is grandfather to the nihilism of the secular age.»
🕊1
Forwarded from Insolarance Cult
Человек-всё-психологизирующий соткан из психологической болтовни и толков (в хайдеггеровском смысле). Он умеет превращать любое общение в разговор на пси-темы. Он указывает другим на нарушение «своих границ» и трепетно реагирует на любые проявления «психологического насилия», которым для него может стать чей-то «слишком громкий» парфюм или музыка из чужих наушников в общественном транспорте. В терапию человек психологический приходит для подтверждения своей исключительности и грандиозности через грандиозность и исключительность своих проблем, а в его надменном взгляде можно прочитать: «Ни один психолог мне не поможет!». Он психологизирует абсолютно всё и принимает самокопание за желание «быть в контакте со своими чувствами». Собственный внутренний мир является для него «сверхценной идеей», вокруг которой вращается всё остальное. Он требует эмпатичного отношения и активного слушания со стороны других, поскольку «конституционально сверхчувствителен и склонен к перестимуляции».
Такая форма человеческой жизни принципиально аполитична, так как замкнута на себе и не интересуется кем бы то ни было ещё. При любом обнаружении Другого человек психологический или мгновенно встраивает его в свои внутренние процессы, используя в качестве нарциссической ортопедии, либо ощущает себя «жертвой» чужих интервенций, если «чужак» слишком настойчиво обнаруживает отличия от собственного Я пси-человека. Солидарность, кооперация или коллективная форма протеста вызывают у такого человека лишь ступор и когнитивный диссонанс. «Начните с себя!» и «работайте лучше над собой!». Там, где соприкосновение с Другим возможно — это или сговор, или комменсализм: «Мы сотрапезники, не больше!».
Из статьи «Закат человека разумного. Учебник (не) фантастической антропологии».
Такая форма человеческой жизни принципиально аполитична, так как замкнута на себе и не интересуется кем бы то ни было ещё. При любом обнаружении Другого человек психологический или мгновенно встраивает его в свои внутренние процессы, используя в качестве нарциссической ортопедии, либо ощущает себя «жертвой» чужих интервенций, если «чужак» слишком настойчиво обнаруживает отличия от собственного Я пси-человека. Солидарность, кооперация или коллективная форма протеста вызывают у такого человека лишь ступор и когнитивный диссонанс. «Начните с себя!» и «работайте лучше над собой!». Там, где соприкосновение с Другим возможно — это или сговор, или комменсализм: «Мы сотрапезники, не больше!».
Из статьи «Закат человека разумного. Учебник (не) фантастической антропологии».
❤1👍1🕊1
therapy speak/психологический словарь это в целом плохо, в частности “обесцениваешь” иногда означает “обесцениваешь”, а иногда “тебе почему то не нравится всякое говно, как же так”
😁3🕊1🌚1
Forwarded from Вася Чугун
это паранодно-шизоидное расщепление на парноидно-шизодиное (плохое!) и депрессивное (хорошее!), которое блокирует способность честно отличать хорошее от плохого (потому что четко различать - это очень плохо, это расщепление, надо всегда(!) видеть смешение)
👍2🤯2🕊1
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
❤7❤🔥5👍2🔥2🤡2🤣1😭1🙈1
https://www.madintheuk.com/2024/07/part-1-neurodiversity-what-exactly-does-it-mean/
«[Judy Singer, who created the term neurodivirsity and fostered the movement]: “I knew what I was doing… ‘Neuro’ was a reference to the rise of neuroscience. ‘Diversity’ is a political term; it originated with the black American civil rights movement. ‘Biodiversity’ is really a political term, too. As a word, ‘neurodiversity’ describes the whole of humanity. But the neurodiversity movement is a political movement for people who want their human rights…. I thought: ‘We need an umbrella term for a movement.’ And I also perceived that this was going to be the last great identity politics movement to come out of the 20th century.”
[…]
Neurodiversity simply means ‘variation in neurocognitive functioning’. So neurodiversity refers to a continuum that embraces, in Singer’s own words, ‘the whole of humanity’. Like biodiversity in nature, neurodiversity is seen as a beneficial and necessary aspect of the human species. But as neurodiversity theorist Nick Walker explains, this diversity is typically said to consist of two groups: people described as ‘neurodivergent’, who are in the minority, because they ‘diverge from the dominant societal standards of “normal” neurocognitive functioning’, and the dominant majority who are said to be ‘neurotypical’. The neurodiversity movement, then, campaigns for the rights of neurodivergent people, including those described as having ADHD or ASD.
[…]
Neurodiversity is said to be an inclusive concept applying to all of us—but in practice, has led to what many see as an unhelpful division between neurodivergents and neurotypicals—with the latter often positioned as benefiting from today’s version of original sin, ‘privilege’. Moreover, it is those with the most severe disabilities, people who in many cases quite literally have no voice of their own, who are most likely to be excluded by these developments. Inclusivity has thus turned into increased marginalisation.»
«[Judy Singer, who created the term neurodivirsity and fostered the movement]: “I knew what I was doing… ‘Neuro’ was a reference to the rise of neuroscience. ‘Diversity’ is a political term; it originated with the black American civil rights movement. ‘Biodiversity’ is really a political term, too. As a word, ‘neurodiversity’ describes the whole of humanity. But the neurodiversity movement is a political movement for people who want their human rights…. I thought: ‘We need an umbrella term for a movement.’ And I also perceived that this was going to be the last great identity politics movement to come out of the 20th century.”
[…]
Neurodiversity simply means ‘variation in neurocognitive functioning’. So neurodiversity refers to a continuum that embraces, in Singer’s own words, ‘the whole of humanity’. Like biodiversity in nature, neurodiversity is seen as a beneficial and necessary aspect of the human species. But as neurodiversity theorist Nick Walker explains, this diversity is typically said to consist of two groups: people described as ‘neurodivergent’, who are in the minority, because they ‘diverge from the dominant societal standards of “normal” neurocognitive functioning’, and the dominant majority who are said to be ‘neurotypical’. The neurodiversity movement, then, campaigns for the rights of neurodivergent people, including those described as having ADHD or ASD.
[…]
Neurodiversity is said to be an inclusive concept applying to all of us—but in practice, has led to what many see as an unhelpful division between neurodivergents and neurotypicals—with the latter often positioned as benefiting from today’s version of original sin, ‘privilege’. Moreover, it is those with the most severe disabilities, people who in many cases quite literally have no voice of their own, who are most likely to be excluded by these developments. Inclusivity has thus turned into increased marginalisation.»
👌1🕊1