NAACP
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2010 12:33 pm
This is not a plague, it is the simple perfect truth. If YOU choose to be ignorant it's YOUR problem. See what all your "neuroscience" is worth at your deathbed.
0 Replies
 
NAACP
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2010 12:35 pm
@HexHammer,
"General medical science" - Were we talking about hospitals here or something? Medicine? This has nothing to do with medicine, my good confused sir. My statements are very direct and truthful, but it is true what they say. People can't handle the truth.
0 Replies
 
NAACP
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2010 12:50 pm
People can change mentally, their way of thinking can change, but ULTIMATELY aren't they the same being? The same brain, the same body, same spirit and soul?
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2010 12:50 pm
@NAACP,
1 - Since Cantor the matter is not settled be it us (Humans) or anything else around us even Space...but at least mathematically there seams to be possible to consider that Infinity´s have size and that there are different sizes for Infinity´s.
(given Cantor developments in the subject...)

2 - Psychiatry is actually the first in the line that opposes very strongly to the common sense preconception of mental illness as a quick fix for categorise "different people"...the consequence since the obscure days of nineteen century is to take the so called mental problematic from sanatorium´s and bring them home to mingle in Society.
Neuroscience on the other hand thinks of each one of us as a pattern unique thus rendering the term normal obsolete, of course...

Statistically one third of the population at least once in its life has some kind of "disturbed" behavioural problem, and all of us with no exception a tendency in that direction given the presence of partial markers for mental disturbances...what else can be said ?

...NAACP don´t fall for the quick science speech out of so little...
NAACP
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2010 01:00 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I'm clearly not falling for anything, I stand by my statments. I appreciate the support! Your words bring not only personal reassurance, but comfot as well.
Thank you.
0 Replies
 
NAACP
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2010 07:15 pm
Where'd you go HexHammer?
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2010 07:17 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
The Pentacle Queen wrote:

What does anyone think about overthinking?
I get told I overthink.... but whislt thinking about the possibility I overthink I came up with this:

To say someone OVERthinks puts the amount they think in a negative light. It suggests they are making things more complicated than needs be. HOWEVER what I would like to present here is that that isn't necessarilly the case- if all understanding is a form of condensing what we see around us and processing it into a kind of conclusion, then thinking something complex isn't neccessarilly distorting something which should be basic. The basic thought is taken as the given when it is ALSO a distortion.
Is this acceptable to anyone?


Well sometimes it is, shall we say, negative to overthink a problem or situation. Give you an example: when I took precalc a few years ago (which was my first real math class since high school) I had a hell of a time with word problems. For one reason or another I would always make the problems far more complex than usual. Gradually, with the help of my Math and Physics professors, I began to view word problems in a far more simpler light. Granted I still need to think when it comes to these problems, but I do not need to overthink them.

The solution to the problem was far more simpler than what I had thought it to be. Some times this is the case; however, when dealing situations, circumstances, etc., we might need to take more into consideration. This does not mean that we should take into consideration all the possibilities, but only the ones that are the most probable in a given instance. This definetly eliminates a large part of the overthinking process (if there is one? Yea there should be.)

I do hear a lot from people, "Youre taking this far too seriously" or, "There's no need to overthink this." But I suppose that comes with the territory of philosophy. We tend to think about matters that no one would ever really question or cultivate an understanding towards. So if you are getting these kinds of responses from individuals on the basis that you take matters that no one would really take up, then I suppose you are heading in the direction of philosophy (the activity that is).

Question: on what matters do people tell you that you overthink?



0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2010 09:25 pm
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.


Hamlet is the classic overthinker. "...the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought".
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 07:06 am
@NAACP,
NAACP wrote:

Where'd you go HexHammer?
Now, I'v seen all your posts and forgive me if seems like something alongside UFO abductions, bible recites and Elvis sightings. Several times I'v asked for evidence other than your empty rhetorics but non was ever given.

I'll just save the both of us a headache and put you on ignore, maybe in a few months I'll take you off just to see if you have gained your good sences back.
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 07:19 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.


Hamlet is the classic overthinker. "...the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought".


I love the first line, can you explain the rest to me?
NAACP
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 08:13 am
@HexHammer,
Well, if you think that my previous posts have ANYTHING to do with "UFO abductions", "bible recites" or "Elvis sightings" or whatever obvious fabrications you're talking about here, then you obviously didn't read them. Evidence you say? Do I really need to provide evidence for the FACT that a human being is ONE being from birth until death? Am I STILL the "skitzo" here? Somebody help this man as he's lost all of he's resonable mental capabilities.

PS: It's "senses" not "sences".........when you come back in a few months let me know if you've learned how to spell.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 03:14 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
The Pentacle Queen wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.


Hamlet is the classic overthinker. "...the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought".


I love the first line, can you explain the rest to me?


What am I, Cliff Notes? It is about what overthinking is supposed to be all about. Do you know the play? Hamlet believes the King Claudius murdered Hamlet's father, and married Hamlet's mother. So Hamlet resolves to kill Claudius. But, "the native hue of resolution" (to kill Claudius) is "sicklied o'er by the pale cast of thought". Hamlet keeps thinking about doing it, but he "overthinks it". "Do I really know that Claudiua killed my father?". "Even if he did, have I really the right to kill him?" (Thus conscience makes cowards of us all). If you want to know what Hamlet finally does-read the play.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 04:10 pm
@kennethamy,
That is so true. Thinking about the pros and cons and the what ifs. This is what differentiates between a doer and hesitater. The doer focuses on one or two actions but the hesitater worries about the consequences, the what ifs and other non-essentials. Maybe the person does not have enough adralin in his/her body to create the urgency. The fight/flight response is not there so in an urgent situation the hesitaters either die or are placed in less stressful situations so that they may not interfere with the community action.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 09:04 pm
@kennethamy,
I would say there are some types of overthinkers:

1) the relevant overthinker
Type of person who takes up relevant matters but may not have enough experience to get a good conclusion, or paranoid ..etc.

2) the irrelevant overthinker.
Takes up irrelevant matters.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 09:20 pm
...and Sir the La Palice has once more spoken...
"Si il' n'était pas mort, il serait encore en vie." Laughing

...an overthinker by definition is never relevant...
NAACP
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 07:02 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
As he continues Be-ing and "relevance" comes so quick it's irrelevant.....
0 Replies
 
NAACP
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 07:03 am
@HexHammer,
"Relevance" comes down to nothing more than individual perspective. You can't say as one Be-ing whether something is relevant or not as someone else might think differently.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 10:46 am
@NAACP,
NAACP wrote:

"Relevance" comes down to nothing more than individual perspective. You can't say as one Be-ing whether something is relevant or not as someone else might think differently.


So, suppose that I say that I wonder whether the Sun rises in the east, or in the west, and someone answers, "well, I like vanilla ice-cream better than chocolate ice-cream". If he thinks that is relevant, he had better show me how it is relevant. After all it doesn't follow that because he thinks it is relevant that it is relevant. Maybe it is. But isn't it up to him to show it is? It isn't just because he thinks it is relevant that it is relevant. Although, he might be able to show that his liking vanilla better than chocolate is relevant to in which direction the Sun rises, it is up to him to show it is. His thinking that it is relevant doesn't mean it is any more than thinking that anything is true means it is true.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 11:04 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

NAACP wrote:

"Relevance" comes down to nothing more than individual perspective. You can't say as one Be-ing whether something is relevant or not as someone else might think differently.


So, suppose that I say that I wonder whether the Sun rises in the east, or in the west, and someone answers, "well, I like vanilla ice-cream better than chocolate ice-cream". If he thinks that is relevant, he had better show me how it is relevant. After all it doesn't follow that because he thinks it is relevant that it is relevant. Maybe it is. But isn't it up to him to show it is? It isn't just because he thinks it is relevant that it is relevant. Although, he might be able to show that his liking vanilla better than chocolate is relevant to in which direction the Sun rises, it is up to him to show it is. His thinking that it is relevant doesn't mean it is any more than thinking that anything is true means it is true.


We all have those strange episodes of personal relevance from time to time.
Suppose that I am in the habit of eating vanilla ice cream each day at sunrise, and much enjoy chocolate ice cream at sunset. Perhaps such a response would seem relevant to my mind at first thought, however, if I were to think further I might think differently as to the relevance to others.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 11:10 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

NAACP wrote:

"Relevance" comes down to nothing more than individual perspective. You can't say as one Be-ing whether something is relevant or not as someone else might think differently.


So, suppose that I say that I wonder whether the Sun rises in the east, or in the west, and someone answers, "well, I like vanilla ice-cream better than chocolate ice-cream". If he thinks that is relevant, he had better show me how it is relevant. After all it doesn't follow that because he thinks it is relevant that it is relevant. Maybe it is. But isn't it up to him to show it is? It isn't just because he thinks it is relevant that it is relevant. Although, he might be able to show that his liking vanilla better than chocolate is relevant to in which direction the Sun rises, it is up to him to show it is. His thinking that it is relevant doesn't mean it is any more than thinking that anything is true means it is true.


We all have those strange episodes of personal relevance from time to time.
Suppose that I am in the habit of eating vanilla ice cream each day at sunrise, and much enjoy chocolate ice cream at sunset. Perhaps such a response would seem relevant to my mind at first thought, however, if I were to think further I might think differently as to the relevance to others.



In the case you give, there is some reason to think your liking vanilla is relevant. But it is not just because you think it is relevant that it is relevant that it is relevant, is it? That's the point. The OP said that there is no argument about what is relevant and what is not, because if someone thinks it something is relevant that is enough to make it relevant. But that is false. The person needs (as you point out) to give some reason for thinking that why he believes is relevant is relevant (and then, that reason can be examined). It is not simply because he thinks it relevant that it is relevant. Right?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Overthinking.
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/26/2022 at 02:51:22