Patient X accepts that this rationalisation is irrational, and that there are no empirical or a priori grounds which connect his repetetive behaviour to any kind of catastrophic event.
When challenged as to why he continues to carry out the behaviour given this acceptance, patient X claims that his mental illness is just like diabetes and just as diabetes cannot be cured by reason, neither can his OCD.
Could patient X be right about that? — MetaphysicsNow
Do you mean that we all engage in OCD rituals, or do you mean that we all have psychological hang ups of one kind or another? If the former, I don' think you are right, if the latter, you probably are.I'm interested that you say you are not patient X. I think most of us are all patient X in one way or another.
That might depend on the severity of the OCD. I think "reason" can help, but being as aspiring Stoic I suppose that's to be expected. The Stoic maxim that we shouldn't let things beyond our control disturb us is, I think, useful in these cases if practiced. CBT seems heavily influenced by Stoicism, and may be helpful. Medication can help as well, I would think. I think reason can help, but may not be able to eliminate OCD in itself.Could patient X be right about that? — MetaphysicsNow
So again there is no sense in trying to contradict the patient's claim which is confirmed by his action. — unenlightened
X's habit is to allay his fears with ritual, and it has the effect of strengthening the fear in the long term as it allays it in the short. Perhaps he does not fully understand this, and then reason can clarify, but as he has (I presume) put himself in the position of patient, it seems that his reason has already set him on the road of looking for some other support for the resolution of the conflict he is in. He needs the therapist to hold his hand and lend him some strength, not tell him he is being unreasonable. Because, as he says, he already knows that and it doesn't help. — unenlightened
No. The proof is in the lack of any definition. Where there is no definition, there is no understanding. No understanding, no cure. In that sense he's correct: for so long as he can avoid understanding, he can avoid being cured. Which leaves the obvious questions, what does he think his cure will be, and does he want to be cured? Or another way, he'll be correct until he decides otherwise.
As to behavioural therapies like desensitization, and others, they can be useful sometimes, for a while, for some people: they're not a cure.
Of course! Good diet, reasonable exercise, and practical stress reduction are good things and help people. So does getting 8 hours of quality sleep. So does having supportive friends. It isn't reasonable to expect good habits to cure everything (and you weren't saying it would). — Bitter Crank
It's a wonder that we aren't crazier than they are. — praxis
"Gastro-psychologists" (just invented new specialty) think that bacteria may have quite a bit of effect on our emotions. Hasn't been proven, but... again, I wouldn't be surprised. — Bitter Crank
There are issues about freedom of will involved here aren't there?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.