![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 4 of 4. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by fallsfall on July 12, 2004, at 7:27:03
You said, above: PS: I've asked before, "If no one can succeed at getting well, why try"??? Wellness and freedom are possible.......!
There are differences between:
1. No one can succeed at getting well - F
2. Everyone can succeed at getting well - F
3. No one cannot succeed at getting well - F
3a. No one can "not succeed" (fail) at getting well - F
4. Everyone cannot succeed at getting well - T
4a. Everyone can "not succeed" (fail) at getting well - F
5. Some people can succeed at getting well - T
6. Some people cannot succeed at getting well - T
6a. Some people can "not succeed" (fail) at getting well - T
7. No one can succeed at getting better - F
8. Everyone can succeed at getting better - F
9. No one cannot succeed at getting better - F
9a. No one can "not succeed" (fail) at getting better - F
10. Everyone cannot succeed at getting better - T
10a. Everyone can "not succeed" (fail) at getting better - T
[10b. Everyone must "not succeed" (fail) at getting better - F]
11. Some people can succeed at getting better - T
12. Some people cannot succeed at getting better - T
12a. Some people can "not succeed" (fail) at getting better - T
The TRUTH is the "No one" and the "Everyone" can succeed at getting well sentances (#1 and #2) are not true. It is NOT true that the entire population either can get well or cannot get well. Totalities, in these kinds of situations, tend not to be true - because each person is an individual.
I believe that it is also not true that the entire population can or cannot get "better" (#7 and #8).
Similarly, it is not true that not any individual cannot get well or better (#3 and #9) - you, yourself, have disproved those two.
I have just added the "a" statements to clarify the difference between "cannot succeed" (is not capable of succeeding) and "can not succeed" (is capable of failing). I leave it to the reader to determine why some statements are true, but their associated "a" statements are false. [But I haven't added the "b" statements (can vs. must) all the way through.]
It seems to me that you weaken your argument when you use a totality. Because most people know intuitively that totalities don't hold for human behavior. Just because it is true that "some one" can get well, doesn't mean that *I* can get well. Wellness and freedom are *possible* (for some people) - but not guaranteed.
I think that the strongest statement (for the purpose that I think that you have in mind) is: "Some people can succeed at getting better". This statement holds the most promise - there do exist people who can succeed at improving their situation. You might even try to argue for "Most people can succeed at getting better".
I have now used up my entire logical thinking capacity for the day, and it is 8:13AM.
Sincerely,
Falls, the Queen of Black and White. (also known as The Ice Cream Queen)
Posted by gardenergirl on July 12, 2004, at 9:12:02
In reply to 64Bowtie. Logic lesson, posted by fallsfall on July 12, 2004, at 7:27:03
Posted by Racer on July 12, 2004, at 10:04:24
In reply to 64Bowtie. Logic lesson, posted by fallsfall on July 12, 2004, at 7:27:03
"Equal opportunity is not the same as equal outcome."
I do believe that, and I think it fits in well with what you've written -- and written so very well. It's almost the only generalization I believe in, and it fits a multitude of situations.
In this case, opportunities are not equal: some people have access to better tools for recovery than others. Any two people who have access to similar (or even identical) tools will likely have different outcomes. Access, in this case, is pretty equivalent to opportunity. But again, equal opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome.
Yes, some people can get better. I'll even go so far as to say that most people, given free access to optimal treatment tools, have a very good chance of getting better.
And falls? Thank you very, very much for writing this. I truly hope it has what I believe to be the effect you desired -- an effect which I, too, desire. Great job.
Posted by 64bowtie on July 12, 2004, at 16:01:08
In reply to 64Bowtie. Logic lesson, posted by fallsfall on July 12, 2004, at 7:27:03
Falls,
You put in alot of hard work on my account. How do I repay you?
For 20 years, people of many stripes and from many places have made the claim that there is no hope for anyone to get well. Call it extrinsic motivation, I feel free and well, now, 20 years later, after lottsa practice, practice, practice.
If people continue to gafaw at the notion of wellness, maybe I should do a better job of weeding out whomever I share my feelings with. Or, maybe keep trying to round up like minded spirits. Or, just go away. Or, write a book. Or, start a Website. Or, turn my seldom-hobby into an occupation; mechanicking on antique cars. Or, just go away. ......but those wouldn't be a well things, now would they?
Thanks for the logic exercise... Looks complete allright. I must remind you that I took license by repeating the statement made by others. I tried to be inferrencial. Guess it needs more work.
Rod
PS: Am I incorrect that people go to a therapist today so that some day soon they won't have to anymore?
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.