Prev: George and Laura Bush have split up
Next: Earn money by using search engine
From: Erin on 7 Aug 2008 21:12
I think many men (many of those i have met in academia anyway)
talk too much and do too little. And i think that the ones who
talk too much do so, *because* they can do little. It's a kind
of defense mechanism to avoid having to deal with
the world. It's not laziness; it's just a way of dealing with
lack of volition, as it takes more effort to undertake enterprises
than to cogitate. Some philosophers of the Middle Ages, i think
used to talk about the scholar's disease resulting from
inactivity-- depression. It's a good question, which comes
first, lack of volition resulting from depression or depression
resulting
from lack of volition. I think it's the former, and i think many
academics are drawn to that life because of a depressive
temperament. The effect of such a state on marriage can
leave the depressed person too exhausted to meet the
challenges that come up in such a relationship. That a
distance may grow from this, should not be surprising.

Erin
From: Bill in Co on 7 Aug 2008 21:19
Erin wrote:
> I think many men (many of those i have met in academia anyway)
> talk too much and do too little. And i think that the ones who
> talk too much do so, *because* they can do little. It's a kind
> of defense mechanism to avoid having to deal with
> the world. It's not laziness; it's just a way of dealing with
> lack of volition, as it takes more effort to undertake enterprises
> than to cogitate. Some philosophers of the Middle Ages, i think
> used to talk about the scholar's disease resulting from
> inactivity-- depression. It's a good question, which comes
> first, lack of volition resulting from depression or depression
> resulting from lack of volition.

Neither. They're concurrent. There is no chicken and egg. There's
either two eggs or two chickens, take your pick.

> I think it's the former, and i think
> many academics are drawn to that life because of a depressive
> temperament. The effect of such a state on marriage can
> leave the depressed person too exhausted to meet the
> challenges that come up in such a relationship. That a
> distance may grow from this, should not be surprising.
>
> Erin


From: Erin on 7 Aug 2008 21:28


Bill in Co wrote:
> Erin wrote:
> > I think many men (many of those i have met in academia anyway)
> > talk too much and do too little. And i think that the ones who
> > talk too much do so, *because* they can do little. It's a kind
> > of defense mechanism to avoid having to deal with
> > the world. It's not laziness; it's just a way of dealing with
> > lack of volition, as it takes more effort to undertake enterprises
> > than to cogitate. Some philosophers of the Middle Ages, i think
> > used to talk about the scholar's disease resulting from
> > inactivity-- depression. It's a good question, which comes
> > first, lack of volition resulting from depression or depression
> > resulting from lack of volition.
>
> Neither. They're concurrent. There is no chicken and egg. There's
> either two eggs or two chickens, take your pick.
>
> > I think it's the former, and i think
> > many academics are drawn to that life because of a depressive
> > temperament. The effect of such a state on marriage can
> > leave the depressed person too exhausted to meet the
> > challenges that come up in such a relationship. That a
> > distance may grow from this, should not be surprising.
> >
> > Erin

Bill, you're exactly the kind of guy i'm talking about; knee-jerk,
unreflected response to serious questions--too easy;

Erin
From: Bill in Co on 7 Aug 2008 21:33
Erin wrote:
> Bill in Co wrote:
>> Erin wrote:
>>> I think many men (many of those i have met in academia anyway)
>>> talk too much and do too little. And i think that the ones who
>>> talk too much do so, *because* they can do little. It's a kind
>>> of defense mechanism to avoid having to deal with
>>> the world. It's not laziness; it's just a way of dealing with
>>> lack of volition, as it takes more effort to undertake enterprises
>>> than to cogitate. Some philosophers of the Middle Ages, i think
>>> used to talk about the scholar's disease resulting from
>>> inactivity-- depression. It's a good question, which comes
>>> first, lack of volition resulting from depression or depression
>>> resulting from lack of volition.
>>
>> Neither. They're concurrent. There is no chicken and egg. There's
>> either two eggs or two chickens, take your pick.
>>
<snip>
>
> Bill, you're exactly the kind of guy i'm talking about; knee-jerk,
> unreflected response to serious questions--too easy;
>
> Erin

It *was* a reflected response.
I still say, there is no chicken and egg there. They (often) come together
in pairs, as in, concurrently. What makes you think it HAS to be
otherwise??? I think *that* is unreflective, and a bit simplistic.


From: Erin on 7 Aug 2008 21:43


Bill in Co wrote:
> Erin wrote:
> > Bill in Co wrote:
> >> Erin wrote:
> >>> I think many men (many of those i have met in academia anyway)
> >>> talk too much and do too little. And i think that the ones who
> >>> talk too much do so, *because* they can do little. It's a kind
> >>> of defense mechanism to avoid having to deal with
> >>> the world. It's not laziness; it's just a way of dealing with
> >>> lack of volition, as it takes more effort to undertake enterprises
> >>> than to cogitate. Some philosophers of the Middle Ages, i think
> >>> used to talk about the scholar's disease resulting from
> >>> inactivity-- depression. It's a good question, which comes
> >>> first, lack of volition resulting from depression or depression
> >>> resulting from lack of volition.
> >>
> >> Neither. They're concurrent. There is no chicken and egg. There's
> >> either two eggs or two chickens, take your pick.
> >>
> <snip>
> >
> > Bill, you're exactly the kind of guy i'm talking about; knee-jerk,
> > unreflected response to serious questions--too easy;
> >
> > Erin
>
> It *was* a reflected response.
> I still say, there is no chicken and egg there. They (often) come together
> in pairs, as in, concurrently. What makes you think it HAS to be
> otherwise??? I think *that* is unreflective, and a bit simplistic.


Because people choose a field according to their temperament, which
is something you are born with.

Erin
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: George and Laura Bush have split up
Next: Earn money by using search engine