Schizoid Personality Disorder and Buddhism

Of all the philosophies that I know of - at least the theistic kind, Buddhism fits this disorder the most.

Allow me to remain ignorant for a moment.
Buddhism teaches non-attachment, solidarity and non-egotism.

Of course, the Buddha's teachings clearly say that one needn't live a solitary life, neither does one have to leave all material possessions or rid of the ego. However, as to some scriptures (don't quote me on this) a path to enlightenment is through these means.

From the information gathered from Wikipedia, this illness seems very related to the philosophy of Buddhism - or at least an alternative lifestyle which the Buddha has presented as a path of enlightenment.

yeah, i've heard people on this forum say stuff like this before. probably most of us would agree with many buddhist philosophies.

i can never understand other people constantly needing bigger and better. as soon as they've got another good thing, it's almost immediately on to the next! it doesn't even seem to make them that happy, despite all the work or money they put into getting whatever it was. there seems to be little point in it, just be happy with what you have and don't ask for much. x.x

Pretty much all philosophies teach the same thing. Plato was about moderation, the Stoics taught apathia, the hedonists were somewhat similar as well.

Some are too social from the get go, like Christianity and Aristotle's eudemonia. But even if they put emphasis on the social, they also teach moderation as a higher form of life, but not for everybody.

OneRinger wrote:Pretty much all philosophies teach the same thing. Plato was about moderation, the Stoics taught apathia, the hedonists were somewhat similar as well.

Some are too social from the get go, like Christianity and Aristotle's eudemonia. But even if they put emphasis on the social, they also teach moderation as a higher form of life, but not for everybody.

I think we should narrow the, "Pretty much all philosophies," down to just the philosophies we know, and even from there, it may not be true after all.
Christianity, or Jesus for that matter, teaches to rid of the ego, to leave all material possessions behind. In this way, Christianity very much supports this disorder... but how many Christians actually live a solitary life? As to my knowledge, only the ultra orthodox Christians in Africa and Israel.
This may of course be irrelevant to the topic.

As for Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Norwegian paganism, and so on, they seem to stray very much from the [mentioned] Buddhist types of viewing the world. Most of them teaches that the path to enlightenment isn't through giving up all, rather it's relative to the goddess or god you are worshiping.

I wonder whether a psychiatrist would diagnose a Buddhist monk with SPD if he were told to analyze the Buddhist's behavior. Certainly, as mentioned, it would seems so.

Most studies, however biased they may be, show that a person needs to have social relations to maintain a healthy mental state. From personal experience, I do better when I am alone - intellectually that is. Society seems to drag people down the road of idiocy, whereas lonesomeness actually contributes to the development of my intellect. I can prosper in my own ideas when I am alone.
Another thing is having to act up when other people are around. There's always this facade which needs to be put up to maintain friendships. It rather seems like a waste of time to me.

I don't know about other people on this forum, but I for one DO want friends. The problem lays in finding friends who won't drag me into their hole of idiocy.. I'm doubting that this is even possible as most of society (no pun intended) seems so moronic these days.

Eh, is it just me or does my text written seem a little bit darker than other people's?

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:Christianity, or Jesus for that matter, teaches to rid of the ego, to leave all material possessions behind. In this way, Christianity very much supports this disorder... but how many Christians actually live a solitary life? As to my knowledge, only the ultra orthodox Christians in Africa and Israel.

Well, there was a time when many Christians lived like that, but eventually the social aspect became primary, and the view of Benedict of Nursia that monks that are alone are parasites primed in the West. There was a small short-lived comeback after the Great Plague, around the 15th century. The Eastern/Byzantine Church still has a place for hermits.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:I wonder whether a psychiatrist would diagnose a Buddhist monk with SPD if he were told to analyze the Buddhist's behavior. Certainly, as mentioned, it would seems so.

Not if he knew it was part of a religion. They don't diagnose people that follow a particular creed. If you were in a society that was all like that, they would not diagnose either. Those diagnostics are relative to the environment.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:Most studies, however biased they may be, show that a person needs to have social relations to maintain a healthy mental state.

Normal people need others to be in a healthy mental state. It does not necessarily apply to everybody. Some people get worse in social situations, so you have to choose for the less unhealthy state.

OneRinger wrote:

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:Christianity, or Jesus for that matter, teaches to rid of the ego, to leave all material possessions behind. In this way, Christianity very much supports this disorder... but how many Christians actually live a solitary life? As to my knowledge, only the ultra orthodox Christians in Africa and Israel.

Well, there was a time when many Christians lived like that, but eventually the social aspect became primary, and the view of Benedict of Nursia that monks that are alone are parasites primed in the West. There was a small short-lived comeback after the Great Plague, around the 15th century. The Eastern/Byzantine Church still has a place for hermits.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:I wonder whether a psychiatrist would diagnose a Buddhist monk with SPD if he were told to analyze the Buddhist's behavior. Certainly, as mentioned, it would seems so.

Not if he knew it was part of a religion. They don't diagnose people that follow a particular creed. If you were in a society that was all like that, they would not diagnose either. Those diagnostics are relative to the environment.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:Most studies, however biased they may be, show that a person needs to have social relations to maintain a healthy mental state.

Normal people need others to be in a healthy mental state. It does not necessarily apply to everybody. Some people get worse in social situations, so you have to choose for the less unhealthy state.

Yes, it's a shame, isn't it. Society would be much better off with Judeo-Christian ethics being maintained.
Not to mention that our sciences would be more advanced if people in the past had upheld their teachings, since the position of theism [generally] presupposes a rational world, whereas the position of atheism by its doctrines automatically dismisses the world as irrational.

It seems to me like history is one entire experiment.
In the past, myths were taught to upheld respect for individuals, cities, objects, and so on.
In our modern society, everyone is indoctrinated into materialism, naturalism, and so forth. All of which presupposes no freedom of the individual - namely self-defeating positions. While science may presuppose determinism, naturalism makes science impossible.
Though many people argue that our modern society bases its beliefs on science, this is utterly wrong.
Many beliefs upheld in todays society, by the general atheists, are actually contradictory to the study of the natural world.
This leads one to wonder, why are we being taught all of these things, if it's nonsensical - or at least not useful to us? It's rather obvious, it's to strengthen the control over us.
If we don't BELIEVE we have freedom, then we certainly do not have it.
It is impossible to control an individual who believes he can not be controlled - that is, unless his brain is electrically manipulated into certain actions or thoughts.

I have seen a lot of studies of "religious people." What is meant by religious people is of course theists, though using religious in a wrong context.
Some beliefs, such as the beliefs of Moses and Abraham, are believed to be the cause of psychosis and in some cases schizophrenia. Most researchers don't seem to care whether these beliefs they hold are a product of the society they've grown up in, rather they conclude from a psychological perspective that the person propounding the beliefs is ill.
Most researchers aren't philosophers, so they tend to commit the genetic fallacy by inferring that these beliefs are false because they are the product of illnesses or delusions.
I suppose it is relative to the psychologist or psychiatrist, since theistic psychologists use this to prove the likelihood of theism being true.

Yes, I also believe it is relative to the individual. However, again, MOST psychologists maintain that an individual is harmed by lack of social interaction.

I went a bit off topic in this post.

It's ok to go off topic if it is interesting.

I won't nick pick on your post, I generally agree, except for the judeo-christian philosophy being superior to what we have or what was before them.

For before them, I would refer you to the argument of Celsus, which seemed to me quite accurate when I first read it: http://books.google.com/books?id=3IAEAA ... &q&f=false

You are looking at one of the only text that explains what was Christianity in the beginning, and also what it replaced. I think most of the arguments are still valid even now.

As far as what we have now, there was some improvements and some regression. There was some improvements in the field of natural sciences, because some methodologies were designed to prove and test the unknown, which revealed religions cannot do. All they can do is expound and justify what was given. Now we can make new theories and test them.

It is more in the social sciences that rationality has fled big time to be replaced with feel good propositions. When I read political arguments from the beginning of the 20th century, it is like a beacon of clarity, compared to what we get these days. The main differences is that beliefs are now more akin to trends than actual lifetime beliefs, They are smaller in scope, and only designed for temporary alliances, instead of building for the future. It comes and goes with pressure groups.

OneRinger wrote:It's ok to go off topic if it is interesting.

I won't nick pick on your post, I generally agree, except for the judeo-christian philosophy being superior to what we have or what was before them.

For before them, I would refer you to the argument of Celsus, which seemed to me quite accurate when I first read it: http://books.google.com/books?id=3IAEAA ... &q&f=false

You are looking at one of the only text that explains what was Christianity in the beginning, and also what it replaced. I think most of the arguments are still valid even now.

As far as what we have now, there was some improvements and some regression. There was some improvements in the field of natural sciences, because some methodologies were designed to prove and test the unknown, which revealed religions cannot do. All they can do is expound and justify what was given. Now we can make new theories and test them.

It is more in the social sciences that rationality has fled big time to be replaced with feel good propositions. When I read political arguments from the beginning of the 20th century, it is like a beacon of clarity, compared to what we get these days. The main differences is that beliefs are now more akin to trends than actual lifetime beliefs, They are smaller in scope, and only designed for temporary alliances, instead of building for the future. It comes and goes with pressure groups.

I did not mean to assert the superiority of Christianity. I am NOT a Christian, nor do I conform to the doctrines of Christendom. I simply thought we were on the same basis, as to the adherence to theism.

When I talk about Christian teachings, I do not mean the doctrines of Jesus, or the doctrines of God, or anything of that sort. I am simply referring to the denial of naturalism (i.e., supernaturalism) in Christianity.
What I was getting at is IF naturalism is true, then we can't do science since the law of logic is internal to the material world, thence no rationality surrounding the universe (objective logical rules), thence an irrational world - something which we can not study with science.
This is much like objective morality versus subjective morality, where I believe it is obvious that objective moral values are true.

I of course accept the view of atheism, I just don't think it allows us to do science, or be humans for that sake, since if true we live in an irrational world--which we do not!

I must admit to you, I do not know much about Christendom from its past. I know how real Christians celebrate, and how they uphold the laws, and how we in the western world are experiencing a false version of this religion, but that's about all. My knowledge in Christian theology is also very limited.
I tried to read as much as I could of the book you linked, but I'm frankly not feeling well enough to read. Hope that doesn't invoke any disrespect.

I do not believe that religion teaches anything; religion is merely a set of doctrines believed by a mass of people. However, I believe that theism is true - and it MUST be true for the world to be rational, for ANYTHING to make sense, theism must be true to at least some extend.

I should also tell you that philosophy - namely formal logic - tells us that the position of atheism is self-defeating, self-refuting, etc., thence my claim about the world being a better place with Christianity.

I completely agree with you. One thing to note is that philosophy is considered a religion now (laugh all you want) because it supports theism, thus theism is considered a religion--which it is not. Just goes to show the corruption of science in these days.
Science is blind without philosophy, since philosophy is logic. And philosophy is blind without science, since science is knowledge.

Excuse the clumpiness of my post. It was written in a hurry.

I agree that theism as a philosophical base is necessary to make sense of the world. Especially polytheism. In any case, this is how our brain is wired to function and learn. Some will tend to monotheism if their brain is wired as a whole. I myself am a little fragmented, so polytheism.

However, you then have to ask yourself this question, which cannot be answered:
Is our brain able to actually able to know the world as it is?

My answer to that is no, because I think it was developed with some minimalist drive behind it. In other words, we only can perceive and think about things that are essential to our survival. All the rest is less functional and could essentially be totally off. I think we are quite delusional about our capacity to know the world outside our immediate senses and what relates fairly directly to them. But those are necessary delusions, which I enjoy, like an esthete would enjoy a good wine.

OneRinger wrote:I agree that theism as a philosophical base is necessary to make sense of the world. Especially polytheism. In any case, this is how our brain is wired to function and learn. Some will tend to monotheism if their brain is wired as a whole. I myself am a little fragmented, so polytheism.

However, you then have to ask yourself this question, which cannot be answered:
Is our brain able to actually able to know the world as it is?

My answer to that is no, because I think it was developed with some minimalist drive behind it. In other words, we only can perceive and think about things that are essential to our survival. All the rest is less functional and could essentially be totally off. I think we are quite delusional about our capacity to know the world outside our immediate senses and what relates fairly directly to them. But those are necessary delusions, which I enjoy, like an esthete would enjoy a good wine.

As to your question - it's a good one.
Do we live in a matrix, hooked up to a virtual computer? It's a possibility, and some things may certainly make this seem a reality.. But I think we have reasons to believe both are false.

Just to clarify, your question is also known as: "Can we trust our senses?"
To answer this question, I would say yes. The reason we CAN trust them is because the world is rational, and we have grounds to believe that our senses are rational; we also have grounds to believe that the senses are capable of understanding the objective world, thus not merely understanding a subjective one.

Now, I realize that this is circular logic - since I am presupposing that the world is rational, and that I can logically derive truth from my own senses. I am actually presupposing a lot of things to answer your question.
However, most atheists would argue that the best explanation is the one to take serious, when they are arguing against theism. Logically, this suits here as well.
There's a possibility that everything is irrational, that we live in a matrix, and so on - but we shouldn't necessarily take these possibilities seriously.

To narrow down my answer, once again. I believe it would be impossible to understand anything of the natural world if our senses are merely made from "chance"--which is nonsense.
We CAN study the natural world, objectively, and thus we must presuppose rational senses.

This is, as I explained in my last post, why atheism makes everything impossible, thence why theism must be true.
If theism IS true (or polytheism for that matter) then we can derive our logic, our senses, etc., from an INTELLIGENT creator - as oppose to some unintelligent chance based mechanism. And hence, we KNOW that our senses are rational.
The world is intelligently designed by a designer, and only a fool (with all respect) would deny this.

I should note that we can have our senses broken via neurological damage. Of course, I am merely pertaining to the design of our own existence.