Placidity. For millennia this has seemed to be the chief characteristic of the wisest people. Why is this? I attribute it to these reasons of mental illness that I elucidated here: https://myanimelist.net/blog.php?eid=800881
Hyperactivity causes mood disturbance, and mood disturbance prevents wisdom. Regardless of your knowledge, if you're disturbed then you're not going to communicate it wisely nor listen to the other person properly.
I endorse placidity. With that said, there is definitely a place for an active attitude in a sensible person's life. So, do you think it is wise to have a calm attitude at all times, or do you think it is wiser to find an appropriate balance?
To paraphrase Spock, one must not allow one's passions to govern one's actions. Thinkers who embrace stoicism understand or at least believe that emotional pathology cannot lead to truth and can often lead to harm should it inform one's actions. By prohibiting emotion from influencing their problem-solving, stoics hope to enjoy the benefits of unbiased clarity in their wisdom. Of course as we saw in roman philosophy, sometimes stoicism would come off as complete apathy. Balance in all things I suppose; it's best to be calm but don't let emotional restraint hold you back from acting
There is absolutely no reason why I should accept "turn your brain off" as a valid excuse to defend a poor show.
I think it's fine to have a few completely placid gurus around, but I wouldn't want to live in a society full of them. Expressing emotion is, on the balance, healthy for individuals and societies, despite the problems associated with it. For the average person, trying to achieve complete placidity would be a form of unhealthy repression.
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.
Don't misunderstand placidity. Placidity just means free from mood disturbance, and it just so happens that hyperactivity can cause mood disturbance. With calmness you give yourself the best chance of not getting disturbed,
I must say, without any malice or disrespect, that your link to you elucidating "mood disturbance" and hyperactivity is just not coherent.
At the softest judgment, you're just trying to re-invent what "mental illness" means. I do not see a basis for trying to do so. I'm not even sure what you say is logically consistent. Let's look in closer detail:
If we understand that mental illness is essentially mood disturbance that causes irrational behaviours, and that mood disturbance is caused by hyperactivity, then we can treat mental illness by treating hyperactivity. In this way placidity would be the antonym of mental illness.
Here you create the premise: Mental Illness (ME) = Mood Disturbance (MD)
Then: MD > Irrational Behaviours (IB)
Then: Hyperactivity (H) > MD
Hence: H > IB
First, they way you phrased that means that you can classify all mental illness as mood disturbance, which is fair enough, but then you say that mood disturbance is caused by hyperactivity. I'm not really sure what the basis for this is. Hyperactivity is much of a mood disturbance as fatigue or anger or dejection or anxiety. Pretty much anything that influences our mental faculties is some sort of a disturbance.
You seem to want to go the medical route in terms of diagnosable illness, in which case, all you need to do is refer to the DSM V.
This is an even more puzzling statement:
Hyperactivity must be then that which causes mental disorder. Mental disorder is severe and enduring mental illness, and severe and enduring mental illness are syndromes that cause mental dysfunction. If hyperactivity underlies any mental dysfunction then all symptoms of mental disorder must be caused by hyperactivity.
As someone who studied a bit of psychology, this is blatantly false. Hyperactivity does not cause mental disorder. Hyperactivity may be a symptom of a mental disorder, for instance ADHD, but it does not cause disorders. It may cause "disturbances" as you call them, but only insofar as these are types of behaviours that deviate from your normal mood. Secondly, hyperactivity does not underlie any mental dysfunction. You cannot then go on to claim that all symptoms of mental disorder are caused by hyperactivity. That just doesn't make sense.
Your juxtaposition of hyperactivity with placidity is not entirely helpful. For instance, mental disorders can be present in completely calm people in forms of Alzheimer's or Dementia. These are actually illnesses that present with lesser brain activity than expected.
Now, to answer your question, is it wise to be calm at all times? Depends on the situation. If you are faced with an important decision, it's best to be rational rather than emotional. However, if you're celebrating something or have some sort of event where emotional input is required, say for instance being social with friends, then it may not be wise to be calm and calculating.
Understand that hyperactivity is simply abnormal or extreme activity in the brain that is sometimes disruptive and it should make perfect sense to you. Try to realise this.
Understand that hyperactivity is simply abnormal or extreme activity in the brain that is sometimes disruptive and it should make perfect sense to you. Try to realise this.
Right.
I realize that you're using hyperactivity in a more literal sense of something being "hyper" "active," in this case, the brain.
But the thing is, that's not the cause of all mental illness, in fact, sometimes it's a symptom. And as I've mentioned before, some mental disorders involve slowed or declining cognitive function.
You just have a general problem with fitting all mental illness under your umbrella. How do you deal with psychopathy? Sociopaths? Depression? Autism? Down syndrome?
I suggest you narrow your scope if you want to keep that terminology.