theory [Theme] Page 1

According to the confrontation theory, now he will think twice before arguing with me.

This is a musical theory, there is no interesting here.

- How would... How would I form. Well, for example. Perhaps, it is only possible, the period of formation of me as a person fell on the acute phase of the conflict between my parents, where my father acted as an abuser. Ultimately, this protracted conflict provoked depression, against which my mother developed a serious illness, and then she died. It is also possible that the father, unable to accept his guilt, decided to extrapolate it to anyone from his inner circle except himself, and I turned out to be just the most suitable option for this. And the competition for mom's attention throughout her illness is a consequence of this extrapolation. A new kind of dependent relationship arose in which the father met with increasing resistance from his son and, ultimately, declared himself the winner in this situation by performing ritual intercourse with my wife. But this is a theory. Of course, you can interpret things differently. Could you explain to me from the point of view of classical psychology: Why did my dad decide to fuck my wife!? Only mind you not about the reverse Oedipus, mind you not about Oedipus, I staked it out first.

Pythagoras believed in the transmigration of souls, and therefore warned us to be especially careful when eating beans, in case you eat the soul of your grandmother.

If you often engage in combat theory, then the answer to the attack can be theory.

The origins of fear in Freud coincide with the "scientific thesis" in 1 John. However, the diametrical difference is that the author of the message speaks of love in a spiritual sense, and Freud in its elementary, sexual meaning (libido). But is the chasm insurmountable? We do not want to narrow it down, but it is worth considering the following: it is indisputable that even the highest spiritual experiences do not pass in the mental life without bodily sensations, although they do not have to be sexual. Some psychologists, the same William James and Karl Lange, even went so far as to mistakenly believe that feelings are just the result of innervation of muscles and blood vessels ... higher intellectual functions. On the other hand, Freud, studying sex drive, over time expanded the concept of sexuality, admitting into it the Platonic idea of Eros and the German word "Liebe" - love. This terminology has led to endless confusion. But Freud emphasized more than once: by "sexuality" he means everything that includes the word "love" - and if you remember this, the objection that his theory is pansexual loses its validity. This view is supported by other arguments. And I do not know of a single psychologist who can argue against John, who brings fear out of love. Only in the Bible is fear perceived more spiritually and therefore not as widely as in modern psychology.

Isn't love a kind of chaos theory? One quick glance, one smile and one word can change the direction of someone's life forever.

he!

Truth and recognition.
When a person tries to convince others of his truth, that is, to make what has been revealed to him binding on everyone, he usually thinks that he is guided by high motives: love for others, the desire to enlighten the dark and lost, etc. And the theory of knowledge and ethics support him in this: they establish that truth is one and truth is truth for all. But the theory of knowledge with ethics and the humane sages equally poorly distinguish where the need to bring everyone to a single truth comes from. It is not the neighbors who want to benefit the one who bothers to bring all to the same truth. He cares little about his neighbors. But he himself does not dare and cannot accept his truth until he achieves real or imagined recognition of "all." For it is important for him not so much to have the truth as to receive general recognition. That is why ethics and the theory of knowledge are so concerned with restricting the rights of questioners as much as possible. Even Aristotle called any "exaggerated" inquisitiveness ill-manneredness. Such a consideration, or rather, such a recusal, would not seem convincing to anyone if for people the recognition of their truth would not be more important than the truth itself.

In order to understand what communism is, it is necessary to get to know this person better, to penetrate into his inner world, only in this way can one find an explanation of how this theory with its inherent dogmas was born in the depths of his mind. Without him there would have been no Russian revolution. He called himself a Marxist, but in reality he reshaped and altered Marx as he pleased to achieve his own goal. There was more of a medieval ruler in him than of Marx.

When a person tries to convince others of his truth, that is, to make what has been revealed to him binding on all, he usually thinks that he is guided by high motives: love for others, the desire to enlighten the dark and the lost, etc. It is not the neighbor who wants to benefit the one who bothers to bring everyone to the one truth. For him, it is important not so much to have the truth as to receive general recognition. That is why ethics and the theory of knowledge are so concerned with restricting the rights of questioners as much as possible.

- This is exactly what we are going to do now.

I can explain the physics of cycling to you. Indeed, classical physics is relatively straightforward. Gravity, friction, torque, center of gravity, and more can all be described in less than one page of equations. With these formulas, I will prove to you that cycling is possible, and I will provide all the information you need to do this. But when you first climb on a bike, you will inevitably fall anyway.

If my theory is correct, Nathaniel turned another person into a blade, which does not at all make him innocent himself. And yet, once again facing his guilt, I experienced predictable, unaccountable pain. We humans cannot stop loving our monsters.