2

There are many schools of philosophy that advocate refuting perceived phenomena, for example:

  • Taoism: the bad equals the good, why be afraid or avoid the bad ones?
  • Science: before proving it right you must prove it wrong first; everything can be, and should be, explained
  • Evolution: being hurt is an opportunity to mature and become flexible
  • Skepticism: there is nothing we can be sure of
  • Postmodernism: talking about meaning is meaningless; everything is just a language game

Under the right conditions and personalities, they may add unnecessary tensions to interpersonal relationships, and encourage maladaptive thoughts. Here are some of mine:

  • Constantly "misunderstanding" others to help them appreciate the opposite
  • Being guilty for stating what you feel, or doing the urgent thing because of not having a solid understanding of the subject
  • Deliberately worsening a bad situation in order to learn something new, or to test how adaptive and flexible you are
  • Wondering about something that you know that you know very well

In general, is there a study on how schools of philosophy interact with personalities? Because sometimes the desire to be flexible and adaptive may be inflexible and maladaptive, not because you have unfortunate life events in your childhood. It's still basically basic cognitive therapy, but the core beliefs/automatic thoughts can be so complex that it would take a lot of time and money to pay for a therapist; and usually they can't even understand it anyway. I don't think wanting to capture the ultimate truth is mutually exclusive with maintaining a healthy relationship.

closed as too broad by virmaior, Geoffrey Thomas Nov 12 '18 at 14:48

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • I like this question, so I would suggest you elucidate your "maladaptive thoughts" some more: How are they maladaptive? In what context? Also, if you are interested in 'personalities' related research, there may be useful answers on psychology.stackexchange.com – christo183 Nov 11 '18 at 14:56
  • I made some edits hopefully to clarify. If I didn't please roll it back or continue editing. I don't know what you mean under "Taoism" when you write "why scare it?" Best wishes! – Frank Hubeny Nov 11 '18 at 15:00
  • @christo183 I also frequent in that site. I have thought about asking in there, but I guess most studies in personalities are for large portion of population. General maladaptive thoughts usually stem from unfortunate life events (e.g. child abuse), not because you read a philosophy book. It's still basically basic cognitive therapy, but the core beliefs/automatic thoughts can be so complex that it would take a lot of time and money to pay for a therapist; and usually they can't even understand it. – Ooker Nov 12 '18 at 7:15
  • I think I see what you mean by "scare". Perhaps what you mean by "why scare or avoid the bad ones?" is "why be afraid of or avoid the bad ones?" – Frank Hubeny Nov 12 '18 at 7:20
  • 1
    [Take note "close voter"] There are very specific studies, in Psychology, such as "suicide rates of doctors". The question isn't about Philosophy, but rather a Psychological study on (would be) Philosophers. Given the difficulty I've had finding such a study, I urge you to go ahead and post the question on Psychology SE, and "closers" to grant some leeway (if only to know whether the field of Philosophy is beset by health and safety risks) - Also OP, have you been reading Nietzsche? – christo183 Nov 12 '18 at 9:01