:xi-clap: :mao-clap: :deng-salute:

The Ox is the second of all zodiac animals. According to one myth, the Jade Emperor said the order would be decided by the order in which they arrived to his party. The Ox was about to be the first to arrive, but Rat tricked Ox into giving him a ride. Then, just as they arrived, Rat jumped down and landed ahead of Ox. Thus, Ox became the second animal.

The Ox is also associated with the Earthly Branch (地支 / dì zhī) Chǒu (丑) and the hours 1–3 in the morning. In the terms of yin and yang (阴阳 / yīn yáng), the Ox is Yang.

Oxen are the hard workers in the background, intelligent and reliable, but never demanding praise. In Chinese culture, the Ox is a valued animal. Because of its role in agriculture, positive characteristics, such as being hardworking and honest, are attributed to it.

Paired with the Celestial Stems (天干 / Tiān gān), there is a 60-year calendrical cycle. Although chǒu is associated with earth, the years also cycle through the five elements of nature (五行 / wǔ xíng).

Oxen are honest and earnest. They are low key and never look for praise or to be the center of attention. This often hides their talent, but they’ll gain recognition through their hard work.

They believe that everyone should do what’s asked for them and stay within their bounds. Though they are kind, it’s difficult for them to understand persuasion using pathos. Rarely losing your temper, they think logically and make great leaders.

The State and Revolution :flag-su:

:lenin-shining: :unity: :kropotkin-shining:
The Conquest of Bread :ancom:

Remember, sort by new you :LIB:

Yesterday’s megathread :sad-boi:

Follow the ChapoChat twitter account :comrade-birdie:

THEORY; it’s good for what ails you (all kinds of tendencies inside!) :RIchard-D-Wolff:

COMMUNITY CALENDAR - AN EXPERIMENT IN PROMOTING USER ORGANIZING EFFORTS :af:

Join the fresh and beautiful batch of new comms:

!finance@hexbear.net :deng-salute:

!agitprop@hexbear.net :allende-rhetoric:

!recovery@hexbear.net :left-unity-2:

!neurodiverse@hexbear.net :Care-Comrade:

  • spez_hole [he/him,they/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    today psychoanalysis is a form of philosophy, it does not attempt to replace psychology. empirical science has its limitations; you cannot do a science experiment to test whether science is a good idea. this matters when psychiatrists help form the SSRI industry; they cannot test the social conditions under which people live, which could easily be just as much the cause of a mental disorder as a lack of allopregnanolone, which could also have its root cause in a failure of social conditions.

    • Audeamus [any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      today psychoanalysis is a form of philosophy

      True. Psychoanalysis predates Freud, btw. So it was philosophical to begin with - Freud pushed it toward becoming a science, which became psychology.

      empirical science has its limitations; you cannot do a science experiment to test whether science is a good idea.

      True, philosophy has value that science lacks.

      this matters when psychiatrists help form the SSRI industry

      Yeah, but that doesn't really justify philosophy or psychoanalysis as alternatives. Psychology has plenty of non-chemical approaches, and you can criticize particular chemical approaches within psychiatry, on its own terms.

      they cannot test the social conditions under which people live, which could easily be just as much the cause of a mental disorder as a lack of allopregnanolone, which could also have its root cause in a failure of social conditions.

      It's probably something that's not sufficiently focused on, but social psychology certainly exists, as does sociology. The idea that social conditions affect mental health outcomes doesn't require a non-scientific approach.

      • spez_hole [he/him,they/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Yeah, but that doesn’t really justify philosophy or psychoanalysis as alternatives. Psychology has plenty of non-chemical approaches, and you can criticize particular chemical approaches within psychiatry, on its own terms.

        It's not about the chemicals, it's about the fact that you cannot test every question you can ask. There is no other society that can function as a control group to test against. Speculation becomes necessary at some point, but they don't need to negate each other as we have already agreed. I do think that opposing any sort of scientistic dogma is important, but I am not saying to forget the social sciences, it just isn't synonymous with truth as the ideological position tends to imply.