by AerynFrellMelol. Not quite.
Stoned =/= philosopher n00b.
Well... maybe...
Naw, Nietzsche loved his opium. But I bet Etzel made you hate Nietzsche. lol
by PhoelyssUnfortunately, conclusions from personal experience from an outside point of view are also quite unreliable, for people only judge what they can see, and what they can see is a very limited selection.
Chances are, you've met many, many more than you think you have, yet all these have been completely undetected, for only the individual themselves can know if they have true empathy or not, and that is the only standing trait among all 'sociopaths' or 'psychopaths'. The ones you've met, possibly can't feel love like you say. Maybe they can, maybe they can't, but as stated, it's not something an outsider can judge, for love is subjective. But you also must consider the ones you don't see and don't identify - which in itself is a contradiction, because you can't consider something you can't see.
Hence why psychology is so flawed, and so is objective personal experience.
Psychology is not founded on the observations of a bunch of people spouting ideas about those they observe around themselves. Credible theories of psychology have empirical bases.
by AerynFrellMeNot really. Most of my girlfriends in junior high (myself included) had checklists full of qualities that we wanted in our love matches. Most of us can shut down our hormone surges, or redirect them if our potential partner turns out to be an asshole who's no good for us.
Most people in general don't, though.
by PhoelyssAnd I've got antipsychotics by acting schizophrenic >.> that just means I know how to mimic, I know what happens chemically, not mentally. I don't know how it feels to be schizophrenic, but I knew how they were seen to the outside world, and mimicked that.
Plus psychologists aren't that much harder to trick than the average person >.>
I feel like I know what it's like to be schizophrenic without ever having been schizophrenic. I've seen enough interviews, read enough studies, and met enough sufferers to know what the condition's like.
My "understanding" of ADHD was sufficient enough to get me the amphetamines I wanted, just as apparently your "understanding" of schizophrenia was deep enough to get your antipsychotics. If "understanding" means 100% knowing what it's like to be a certain type of person, then we all fall short of understanding each other. But really, when someone says they "understand" another person, they don't mean that they can recreate every single facet of that person's internal states.
The fact that it's so easy to fool a doctor whose license is on the line with whatever medication they prescribe you is a testament to how easy it is to reconstruct other states of mind. Sure you might need to be schizophrenic to completely know the schizophrenic experience, but just by reading about the condition on the internet, you can simulate the condition well enough to a person who's career it is to diagnose you and give you drugs sufficiently enough to get the drugs that you want.
Understanding comes in factors of degrees. Understanding a mind is similar mechanistically to understanding the measurements of a circle. The precise measure of an circle's circumference goes on and on as a variable of the decimals of Pi, just as the frames of mind of a person go on and on by their own intricacies. In neither case can you ever grasp an "absolute," but with correct reasoning you can ascertain something sufficiently "relative."
By the way I have to ask: Why did you want antipsychotics?