What is a sociopath/psychopath?

[Whaleboy]

And what is the difference? How does one make a (self?)diagnosis?

Also, what does it mean when one is "psychotic"?

[Elok]

Psychotic: I'm pretty sure that just refers to delusions, hallucination, paranoia, and other signs of severe separation from reality.
Sociopath is just a general term for a crazy punk who hurts or cheats people for fun and feels no remorse. More specifically, it could refer to people with antisocial personality disorder, i.e. people who naturally assume, for no rational reason, that the laws and conventions which govern social behavior do not apply to them, and can be broken at will. Basically Nietzsche's superman, only not as pretentious about it.

[GePap]

I think the difference (not a doctor, so this is how I understand it) is that a sociopath clearly knows they are doing wrong, but they have no regard for any of the limits or rules of society: in short, they don't care that they are doing wrong. Psycopaths are not in full control of their cognative abilities, so their handle on right and wrong is not 100%.

I would be more warry of a sociopath than a psychopath.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
Basically Nietzsche's superman, only not as pretentious about it.

Immense distorsion of the mans work!

And the correct translation (or at least the best one) is overman..as in beyond 'man', not just a souped up model.

[Dinner]

What is a sociopath/psychopath?

Look in the mirror.

[Dinner]

The truth is I don't know what the difference between the two of them is .

[red_jon]

In Texas, the sociopaths execute the psychopaths.

There's your difference.

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
Immense distorsion of the mans work!
And the correct translation (or at least the best one) is overman..as in beyond 'man', not just a souped up model.

Yes, I know ubermensch is literally "over-man." It's just that it sounds like a factory supervisor when I say that.
And I don't think it's that big of a distortion. What was his chief concern? That the rules of society be used to confine and hold back the great men who were ostensibly above them. Why were they above them? They just were. If you're a sufficiently special person, the rules of others do not apply to you. Normal humans are like beasts compared to you. You are a force of nature as it should be, taking by merit of dominance whatever you wish to be yours. So from a societal point of view, Zarathustra is nothing more or less than an unusually gifted and tactless sociopath.
But this is a bit early in the thread to be threadjacking.

[Whaleboy]

It would appear that I have some sociopathic tendencies .

Still, I don't think I am a total sociopath, its probably a sliding scale in most/all people.

[Maniac]

Does anyone know some online psychological test to test your sociopathedness? I think it would be cool to compare results.

[Dinner]

oh, I'm sure I could do well on that test.

[DanielXY]

So do the following occupations define you as a sociopath?

- Mafia-Member
- Gangster (the usuall type you see on the street)
- Terrorist
- Freedom-Fighter (the type which goes against military targets)
- Mini-Rebel (wearing offensive T-Shirts and the like)
- Politician

Any of them?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok


Yes, I know ubermensch is literally "over-man." It's just that it sounds like a factory supervisor when I say that.
And I don't think it's that big of a distortion. What was his chief concern? That the rules of society be used to confine and hold back the great men who were ostensibly above them. Why were they above them? They just were. If you're a sufficiently special person, the rules of others do not apply to you. Normal humans are like beasts compared to you. You are a force of nature as it should be, taking by merit of dominance whatever you wish to be yours. So from a societal point of view, Zarathustra is nothing more or less than an unusually gifted and tactless sociopath.
But this is a bit early in the thread to be threadjacking.

A sociopath in effect has no conscience at all of his action. Zarathustra's vision of an overman has a conscience. when he says that man is a bridge between overmna and beats, he is specifically saying man is not a beast: the creation of good and bad, and even more, of good and evil force man to come to fgrips with himself, to enslave and break oneself yes, but also to gain a vision for things beyond animal urges.

For Nietszche for example, Jesus is an incredible man: here is a carpenter's son who rceate a brand new moral code..and that is what Neitszche look for in an overman, a creative being (which explain the camel, to lion, to child speech). How much did the creation of Christianity destroy, sweep aside? how many ancient moral codes and their believers were overturned, annahilated? And all that with the creation of Chrsitianity, which is the thing, to create is also to destroy: every great creation means and end to something, which is why he feels the creator can not afford pity. if yu pity what is, how can you gather the strength to destroy it and oevrthrow it when you create the new?

[Elok]

That's a nice interpretation, but it doesn't chime with what I've read of his works. The "magnificent blond beast" overcoming all that stands in his way, the strong over the weak; all of his sayings are more in line with the virtues of the antisocial than the enlightenment-era deistic morality you describe. If you read in between all of his gibbering self-aggrandizing poetry, Zarathustra's message is simply that he is greater than us, and therefore his concerns supercede ours.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
That's a nice interpretation, but it doesn't chime with what I've read of his works. The "magnificent blond beast" overcoming all that stands in his way, the strong over the weak; all of his sayings are more in line with the virtues of the antisocial than the enlightenment-era deistic morality you describe. If you read in between all of his gibbering self-aggrandizing poetry, Zarathustra's message is simply that he is greater than us, and therefore his concerns supercede ours.

The blond beast may oevrcome all in its way, but it has no depth. Nietzsche wrote more than one book, in fact Zarathustra is one of his first books. Beyond Good and Evil, Geneology of Morals: these books give a far clearer picture of his aims, once one gets a handle on his style.

How do you interpret the "Camel, to Lion, to Child" passage?