Epistemology Paradox Where Psychology meets Philosophy


Ponder this, how is it that you know yourself and how is it that you know anything about the world or facts?

You know the world through yourself and you know yourself in relation to the world and the things in the world. 

Even your self image, the way you feel about yourself is determined in part by how people characterize you to yourself by how they react to you and how they treat you.  Also a lot of your self image is determined by what you don’t know about yourself.  Normal people are not depressed, but in psychology it is known that only depressed people evaluate themselves correctly.  If we examine the Dunning Kruger Effect this might be because the experienced individual compares themselves to people that are better than themselves and knows their own weaknesses and down-fallings.  Whereas an inexperienced person just has feelings about themselves.  The young woman who thinks she is very good at sex because she enjoys it a lot.  The young man who thinks he is good at singing because he sings very loudly.  If we are delusionally in relationship with ourselves we are delusional about the world and vice versa.

There are other people who are non-delusional about facts but they are delusional about themselves.  These people are quite curious, they worship factoids and are non delusional about facts but they don’t have wisdom or understanding that connects them, they are like rain man.  These people often have warped personalities or non personalities.  We often see them trolling the internet as radical Atheists, ruining interesting conversations, and passive aggressively sniping and criticizing others but completely unaware of themselves, incapable of scrutinizing themselves and incapable of allowing themselves to be scrutinized or criticized by others.  It is though they want to be a person with no body that throws stones at every person with a body.


Psychology was originally in the form of the Talking Cure.  Modern psychology has failed to maintain a connection to it’s purest root and highest manifestation.  The Talking Cure actually made you smarter, it was a form of discussion and relationship almost scientific in it’s nature.  It was an intimate joint venture into the nature of reality through the realm of proper conversation.  It was aware of all of the logical fallacies and cognitive biases.  It was participatory in spirit.  You helped the other person refine their relationship with reality by pointing out any logical fallacies or cognitive biases they might be using.  In a way this became what is now peer review in science.  It was a rational, appreciative, ameliorative, relationship where people didn’t mislead, obfuscate, bifurcate, conflate, conceal, misrepresent,  or mislead intentionally. They didn’t try to shut the other person up, or passive aggressively create negative antagonizing emotions with veiled hostility operating on a hidden agenda.

The funny thing about the “fanatical atheists” as Albert Einstein referred to them, is that they aren’t even rationally in relationship with science or philosophy (or themselves, or others for that matter).  They really don’t know how to reason or how to make a positive assertion that is rational, specific, explanatory, useful, and educational.  They can’t get to the correct answer by themselves.  They presuppose that everything is already known or that there is an authority on the subject to whom one can go and ask a question.  All of their knowledge is received knowledge and all of their arguments are borrowed, and yet they make the fundamental attribution about themselves, thinking in terms of essences and every time they regurgitate a response that they have heard somewhere else, they reify to themselves that they are very sciency.  That they have something to do with science.

A rational person is rationally in relationship with themselves in that they evaluate themselves correctly, admitting that they are wrong when they are wrong.  A rational person is rational in relationship with other rational people.  A rational person is rational in relationship with the world and with facts.  Every deviation from rational praxis is psychotic.  People who haven’t done enough philosophy don’t understand, if it can’t be argued rationally that is because it isn’t true or it might be true but you don’t have the philosophic calculus to express it in a winning argument.  Science and good Philosophy are done analytically not emotionally.  Emotions warp and distort the world around us.  That is why appeals to emotion are logical fallacies.

This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[2]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

Also if you have become emotional or you reject a persons argument because of their conclusion because you can’t falsify their philosophic calculus, or you are being passive aggressive or covertly hostile because you are operating on a hidden agenda…

Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, sarcasm, stubbornness, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible.

For research purposes, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) revision IV describes passive-aggressive personality disorder as a “pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance in social and occupational situations”.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior

You are leaking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_deception_theory#Leakage) that you are emotional and that you are doing bad science or bad philosophy because of being in relationship with your emotions (issues) and you are not letting your reason demonstrate sapiential authority, you think your argument is made better by the emotional content, or you are trying to win or attain some goal by upsetting the emotional state of the party whom you are trying to antagonize.

passive aggressive


One thought on “Epistemology Paradox Where Psychology meets Philosophy”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s