I hope the treatment is working for you! I have treatment resistant anxiety/depression, and ADHD. I've burnt out a number of times at work - normally short durations thankfully, but last time it landed me in the hospital. On the bright side, I got into an rTMS trial that worked really well for me - within a week I was feeling sooooo much better.

Regarding goals: I'm really trying to not be so work driven, but it is still hard. I'm a terrible people pleaser, which makes having firm work boundaries hard. I'm trying to counterbalance with some more robust "personal care" goals I guess you could say - with some of those being more around appreciating the everyday vs bigger, more distant career, house etc...goals

Jerry would be proud

> https://theappalachianonline.com/opinion-truth-objectivity-and-postmodernism/

Is that article a spillover from the late 2010’s 90s-style culture war remake? Stuff like:

>To solve these problems, among others, Karl Marx, began drifting away from Enlightenment principles in search of ideas to eliminate the inequalities brought on by Enlightenment principles. However, the disillusionment with the Enlightenment occurred post World War I and II, when the technological marvels produced by science led to the slaughter of millions.

Doesn’t strike me as particularly productive. Marx pretty much continued the sort of critical philosophy that Kant (perhaps the most important Enlightenment thinker….or at the very least one of the most important ones) pioneered, the post-Kantians systematized, and the German idealists and their successors critiqued sympathetically.

The critique of Enlightenment ideals and conceptions of reason we see after WWII (like, say, Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School, i.e., the eternal bogeyman of a subset of the political right) strike me as perfectly in line with the very spirit of the Enlightenment, which is always also self-critical. Also blaming the disillusionment exclusively on science strikes me as misleading. There was disillusionment with the culture that spawned out of the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment at large.

>Consistent with postmodern doctrine is the belief that institutions, such as science and language, are oppressive institutes of control.

Who actually claims this and what is their actual argument here? And more importantly, what is the context of this argument? This is an often repeated claim that isn’t entirely wrong, but I worry that it has taken on a life on its own, i.e. separated from actual postmodernist thought.

>If both sides are right and wrong, does that not prove postmodernism’s point that truth is up to individual interpretation? Not exactly. Aristotle solved this philosophical problem in ancient Greece when he theorized that truth and ethical behavior bisect between two extremes, called the “Golden Mean.” Since both sides offer truth and falsehood, given their rejection of the other side’s perspective, then it stands to reason that the middle approach is true, since it formulates a solution based on complete information. To answer humankind’s biggest question pertaining to truth is to find the middle between Enlightenment and postmodern philosophy. To choose one over the other is to look at the world from an incomplete lens. We should strive to reach a reasonable approach toward human progress while acknowledging our personal bias and give those with dissenting beliefs a platform.

Disagree. A better solution would be to first actually understand what led to the disillusionment with Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment ideas and what those critiques of them (especially those that still conceive of themselves as continuing the Enlightenment project or at the very least as laboring in its spirit) say. Especially since this issue doesn’t really seem to be confined to the post-war era:

>Paradoxically, the crisis of the Enlightenment arose from within, and indeed from its most cherished principle. The problem is that this principle is self-reflexive. If reason must subject all beliefs to criticism, it must also subject its own tribunal to criticism. To exempt its tribunal from scrutiny would be nothing less than ‘dogmatism’, accepting beliefs on authority, which is the very opposite of reason. The criticism of reason therefore inevitably became the meta-criticism of reason. If the Enlightenment was the age of criticism, the 1790s were the age of meta-criticism. All the doubts about the authority of reason, which are so often said to be characteristic of our ‘post-modern’ age, were already apparent in late eighteenth-century Germany.

Frederick Beiser’s Hegel, p. 23

I was going to ask this exact same thing.

It depends on the role you have. Being an engineer is stressful! But other roles are less stressful. A role like a solutions engineer requires the technical knowledge but also the ability to easily present & talk to other people. In that role your day isn't necessarily 8 hours. Maybe you have 2 hour-long demos, an hour or two of prep and notes, maybe another hour meeting (all done by Zoom in your house) and you're done for the day. Add in the fact that nobody's up your ass with constant needs and demands like they are in admin or customer service.

You explain your software, show your customer how to enable the features they need for their use case, and then answer any follow up questions. You are a RESOURCE that everyone is thrilled to see.

Dreadful example of excluded middle here. To say 'science' is perfect and 'pseudoscience' is completely wrong is reductionist in the extreme. And the consequence of that reductionism is to create false dichotomies between peoples and groups, when a search for common ground would be a much more fruitful strategy for all concerned.

Second this one!! 👌👌.

Why did he did he deem it necessary for philosophy to become science?

I would add to that the ability to be alone. I'm divorced and my kids are grown, it was an adjustment but there's a lot to be said for alone time.

What do you mean by “science” here and why would it be “just” “science of philosophy”? Particularly so since, say, someone like Hegel — well-read on and responding to ancient philosophy — deemed it necessary for philosophy to become science.

>as in the case of the increasingly clear negative personal and societal effects of, for instance, vaccine and climate change denialism.

Making the endorsement of a theory into a social virtue and its rejection into a moral crime is no part of science.

The waste is so safe you could literally put it in your backyard.

The Replication Crisis isn't helping either.

Find a job that requires minimum effort that pays enough to have an easy life. I already have that

Go on....

Nothing taught me to listen to why I hated the constant pressure to be doing things like covid lockdown. It changed how I think about everything and my reasons for working. Now i see my hobbies as far more important than my work. It has improved how I live quite a bit.

Denialism = unscientific instead of pseudoscience. Pseudescience =

(1) it is not scientific, and
(2) its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific.

Without (2) it can't be pseudoscience.

Only if someone denies theory XYZ because of ABC and claims ABC is scientific while ABC is unscientific, only then Denialism = pseudoscience.

So outright denying XYZ is a science is unscientific but not pseudoscience. Denying XYZ is a science on religious grounds is unscientific, but not pseudoscience.

I got my doctorate in this

[removed]

[removed]

What texts do you recommend about Putnams account of perception Post-„Threefold Cord“?

Bertrand Russell did a better job solidifying this in his work "In Praise of Idleness" in my opinion.

A somewhat more modernized take published in Current Affairs would be "In Defense of Laziness"

Both worthy reads for people with doubts, like some of the comments this topic tends to attract....

Can you elaborate more on your job? I see posts like this making tech seem like a dream but never any specific examples or proof. I have no idea how to get started in it and I'm starting to think it's a joke

Yup. I decided at the age of 10 that I wanted to be a chemist. Pursued that goal with pretty much all available energy and got my PhD at age 28, and then burnt out (wound up in the ER) at age 30. I'm now 33 and I haven't worked since.

Signs were there since about age 20 that being a chemist wasn't what I wanted- I wanted to know chemistry, which is completely different from being a chemist. I never gave myself room to slow down or honestly reflect of what I was aiming for, and if it aligned with what I cared about most in life. Persuing it anyway (I had to- too many loans) slowly started to break be and I began having serious mental issues starting around age 25.

The last 3 years I have been living with my grandparents and doing nothing... which is what I have so badly needed for so long. I've really gotten in touch with myself and what I want out of life, and have grown SO much as a person since. I would not have been able to do so if I still had a job and a lot of responsibilities.

The sad part is through this time... I have realized that what I want out of life I can't access (no money, nor a functional world for me to do stuff in), and even then I am kinda "done" and don't really want to do anything anymore. So it's bitter sweet in the sense that I really did figure so much stuff out, but am also just kind of passively waiting for my demise.

At least I did get to do a core set of things I wanted to get out of life, and that is not nothing.

Something: *exists*

Philosophers: "hmmmm?"

Have you seen that meme, lol

Hell yeah I'm philosophical as fuck