User talk:Drasticomico

A few thoughts on my major and how it is seen

I am constantly asked why i choose to study Philosophy. It seems that a lot of people have this misconception that philosophy is useless, and I will never find a good job. Not only i think that that's a very sad mindset to take, as these people shouldn't try to intervene in my life, and they should think more about their own majors, (not having me to steal their jobs is actually good for them, haha) but I also truly believe that this partially comes from an endemic ignorance about what Philosophy actually is.

Philosophy is not a science. It's a field of knowledge to be studied or an attitude. A lot of philosophers are scientists, but not all of them are. Science works by assuming a ground on the work of the past. One does not research about genetics without previous knowledge about the peas. But philosophy is there to question the ground we stand on. It looks deeply into what constructs our lives. A philosopher would not apply the scientific method on those peas, instead they would ask what made life always follow a pattern from those that created them. Philosophy begs the question, science creates the hypotesis.

Not only that, but philosophy creates irrefutable theories. You can't disproove, with empirical evidence, that Schopenhauers quote "Men does what he wills but he cannot will what he wills", but that doesn't mean you cant disagree with it. Instead, philosophers search for their peers train of thought to refute the way they got to that conclusion. Science progresses, Philosophy always comes back to their roots. It makes other areas of human life improve, but philosophical knowledge on itself doesnt have anything to improve.

Tag article

Thanks for deleting the scent marking in the tag (graffiti) article. I'd thought the same thing as what you wrote in the edit description but I wasn't sure if I was just being defensive, so I'm glad you agreed and were more bold than I was :) -- NotCharizard ^🗨 14:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline personality disorder

Hello, in this edit you removed Yandere from the "See also" section on Borderline personality disorder. I am tempted to revert it because it shares enough superficial similarity to warrant being in "See also" in my opinion. Being in "see also" does not mean they are related in cause or identical in presentation, simply that they share some similarity such that a reader reading about one may be interested in at least seeing the other. What was your reason for removing it? Kimen8 (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kimen8 hello, I was going to develop my thoughts but my computer glitched. I feel as if the Yandere character type shouldn't be seen as related to BPD, considering the stigma and stereotypes related to the disorder, specially those that portray patients as violent. Do you think that keeping the Yandere page on the see also section could give an example of these stereotypes, so we keep in mind that they aren't equivalent to reality? I'd like to hear your perspective. Cheers! Drasticomico! (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know anything about Yandere or its use in popular culture, and so if it is generally or always associated with some form of violence or abuse, then I agree that it should not be in "See also" on the BPD page. The small section on Yandere here on the wiki seemed, at first glance, to at least share some similarities; I see now it seems to be stressing some form of violence. Kimen8 (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kimen8 The Yandere character type is normally atributed to character who go to great lenghts to keep a loved one, which is a symptom of BPD. But the thing is that these characters are portrayed as very violent and deranged. See Yandere Simulator for example, a game where the player's objective is to kill potential rivals for your partner. That's why I removed, to me at least, comparing the trope to real patients may come off as insensitive. Drasticomico! (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]