It seems to me you're saying what is wrong, in some moral sense, with being depressed. As if having depression is a failure of oneself, and the reason people seak treatment is not out of need but is because they perceive themselves as being wrong and perceive others as perceiving them as wrong.

If that be the case then, certainly, there's nothing morally wrong with depression. The reason one seeks treatment is the same as the reason one seeks treatment for chronic pain -- to feel better. Not because they are wrong for having depression.

Do I have you right?

I highly doubt that if I go to a doctor telling them that I am depressed, they would just send me out the door, and not diagnose me with anything. — Agustino

If you walk into a doctor's office having already diagnosed yourself, then why are you even going to the doctor's and being surprised when, perhaps, your doctor may agree? When I've gone to the doctor, I don't do the job for her. I lay everything out for her to decide best what most probably is affecting me. You start with as many symptoms and clarifications as one can, and then your doctor decides with you what you should do.

They would diagnose me with something for sure, and quite possibly prescribe me some pills for the short term and then ask to see me again.

If you've given your doctor no reason not to think that you're depressed, then why are you still surprised that you're being treated...by a doctor's whose job it is to treat...?

I don't need to have major depression (which is what you're talking about) to be treated by a doctor. It will suffice that I have, for example, frequent episodes of lethargy, loss of energy/motivation, trouble sleeping and sadness. That is not sufficient to qualify me for major depression. But it is more than sufficient to warrant treatment according to a doctor.

Your doctor, then, will be treating you for situational depression, not clinical depression. Why do you not get this? If one is being treated for clinical depression, then medication is a necessary first step. If one is being treated for situational depression, medication is only a possibility to help alleviate the pain. Clinical depression is very much viewed as being fixable, while situational depression is not. Doctors fully realize that they can't fix your home life, or your job, or whatever else. But medication can help those people arrive at a better baseline in which they can change their bad surroundings. You seem to really fumble over doctors' intentions, and why they do what they do.

But is it the doctor's job to decide what "better" is for the patient? — Agustino

Yes, it's why they spend over a decade educating themselves in order to best treat the people they live to serve. If it's not the doctor's role to decide that a cast on a broken bone is better for that person, then a doctor is of no use.

The doctor is "helpful" in a few cases. — Agustino

Just a few? 3-5? :|

The doctor is "helpful" in a few cases. Someone from my family suffered and died from Alzheimer's. Yeah, the doctor was "helpful", she gave them pills and injections so that they would be like a vegetable, and would lose interest in everything else - of course they wouldn't be violent anymore. If you count that as "helpful" fair enough. I don't. If you're unlucky to get a physical condition like that, then you're fucked - doctor or no doctor. That's it, if you get that, I honestly think that nothing, save a miracle, can save you. — Agustino

Sounds like you're trying to blame doctors and medicine for Alzheimer's ravages, and the medical field for not being able to cure your family member's illness. Sometimes you have to treat people with drastic means in order to ensure as drastically a different, but better, improvement in someone's health. This doesn't always work, however. But perhaps you'd rather your family member be left alone? Mayhap if one has a heart-attack, you can be their cheerleader so that they can overcome what they can't, zzzz :-d

But I'm not discussing that type of mental illness. If you get depression - and I was diagnosed with depression before - you have hope. — Agustino

This doesn't therefore mean that you were truly clinically depressed. If you just go to your doctor and say, "fuck man, I real sad, halp me," then you won't get much help. You need to explain as fully and concretely as you can what you've experienced. And if your doctor is impatient, too quick to prescribe medication, is more demanding than suggestive, then guess what? Try another doctor.

You're not finished. You have a lot of inner resources left, which lie untapped inside of yourself. So long as your mind is not physically affected, you can still climb out of the pit you have dug yourself in.

No, you can't.

This is why I suspect you've never been clinically depressed before. You just don't get it.

In that case, there's ways for you to save yourself. But they ultimately depend on you, not on the doctor. The doctor can do little, if anything, to save you.

You might as well tell someone suffering from cancer that they can do it all by themselves. Perhaps some herbal tea is all you need...

If you walk into a doctor's office having already diagnosed yourself, then why are you even going to the doctor's and being surprised when, perhaps, your doctor may agree? When I've gone to the doctor, I don't do the job for her. I lay everything out for her to decide best what most probably is affecting me. You start with as many symptoms and clarifications as one can, and then your doctor decides with you what you should do. — Heister Eggcart

I was responding to Thorongil:

You could go to the doctor claiming to feel depressed and he or she might not diagnose you. — Thorongil

Doctors fully realize that they can't fix your home life, or your job, or whatever else. But medication can help those people arrive at a better baseline in which they can change their bad surroundings. You seem to really fumble over doctors' intentions, and why they do what they do. — Heister Eggcart

But they don't have to fix my home life or whatever. They have to fix my attitude/response to my home life so that the depressive response is changed with a different kind of response. And medicine isn't helpful in doing this.

Yes, it's why they spend over a decade educating themselves in order to best treat the people they live to serve. If it's not the doctor's role to decide that a cast on a broken bone is better for that person, then a doctor is of no use. — Heister Eggcart

They've spent their time educating themselves how to treat disorders according to classifications made by others like them. They necessarily see through the prism of the classifications, and can never help the person they face. And I'm not the only one who believes so - there are academics who have written books supporting similar conclusions.

I generally don't trust my doctors anyway. I have a decent grasp of medicine, and can always discuss and look at different possibilities with doctors. I had conditions in the past, for example, that doctors recommended surgery for, and that I treated without any kind of surgery after I pressured the doctor in the treatment I wanted (which by the way worked, even though the doctor was "skeptical" about it at first).

Sounds like you're trying to blame doctors and medicine for Alzheimer's ravages, and the medical field for not being able to cure your family member's illness. Sometimes you have to treat people with drastic means in order to ensure as drastically a different, but better, improvement in someone's health. This doesn't always work, however. — Heister Eggcart

No I'm not blaming them, I'm simply stating a fact. If you have the bad luck of having such a condition, doctor or no doctor - you're still fucked. The doctor will help - but only very minimal kind of help.

But perhaps you'd rather your family member be left alone? — Heister Eggcart

If they were left alone, they wouldn't have been much worse than after treatment.

Mayhap if one has a heart-attack, you can be their cheerleader so that they can overcome what they can't, zzzz — Heister Eggcart

If one has a heart-attack, I know the symptoms to expect, and I have the tools necessary to notice if there actually is a problem. For example - I will take their blood pressure, and monitor pulse for any kind of arrhythmia and see how fast/slow it is. I will measure their blood oxygen level. Provided that blood oxygen level is good, their symptoms are minimal, and blood pressure levels are normal, and there are no signs of arrhythmia I wouldn't worry too much, even if their heart rate may be high and they may claim tightness in the chest, etc. Then I will monitor the condition for any changes, and call the ambulance only if necessary. At the moment I don't have an ECG machine (but I will at one point acquire one, but can't be bothered at the moment), and then there will be no need for ambulance, except if they actually have a heart attack (in which case it might be faster if I transport them to ER).

If they actually have a heart-attack though, and require surgery for it, they still run a very high risk of death, even if caught early. It's just a fact that doctors can't really help if you're really in trouble. They can do somethings for you, but generally not that much.

This doesn't therefore mean that you were truly clinically depressed. — Heister Eggcart

According to the doctors you love, I was :P

"fuck man, I real sad, halp me," — Heister Eggcart

>:O that's hilarious!

No, you can't. — Heister Eggcart

Well I felt like I couldn't at the time. But that doesn't mean that I actually couldn't. You can learn to disbelieve your feelings with regards to some things.

You might as well tell someone suffering from cancer that they can do it all by themselves. Perhaps some herbal tea is all you need... — Heister Eggcart

Well if you have advanced stage cancer - chances are again, that doctors, or no doctors, you're fucked. One of my cousin's grandparents was a doctor. When he got cancer, he refused treatment. Why? Because he understood that if you have cancer, treatment may actually speed up your death, and will make the rest of your life a living hell. It's easy for doctors to prescribe treatment to others - they're doing a job - but when it comes to themselves, it's a whole different story. Fact of the matter is, that when the body really goes haywire, the doctors themselves can do much less than people imagine. When doctors do wonders, most of the time, it's when the body hasn't actually really gone haywire. Like someone has indigestion and GERD - they go to the doctors, they follow a treatment, and they're as good as new!

I had a friend who died from cancer in his late teens. He had access to the best doctors in the whole world actually, and his condition was caught quite early. He still died. Fact is if you get to the point when something really goes wrong with the body, it's very difficult to treat, even if you could afford the very best treatment in the whole world. It's just a fact - as sad as it is. It doesn't mean you shouldn't try to treat it, and you shouldn't hope that it will be successful, but just to consider that treatment will need to include much more than doctors can give you, and even then it might still fail. And the most important resource you have is still your body. Your body can do wonders that your doctors can't.

For example, I have a family friend whose wife had breast cancer in the terminal stage. Even with chemo, she was given a small chance to live. So she refused treatment. Instead she went on a special diet, the cancer went into remission, and she ultimately got cured. If she had listened to the doctors, she would have most likely died from the chemo (my friend that I mentioned above died from the chemo actually - and I know other people as well who died from the chemo). I wouldn't claim now that following her diet, not eating almost anything, drinking your urine, and drinking special water will cure you. But the medical world is much less capable to explain or account for the multivariate elements that are involved in such serious cases. Ultimately as I said, it is the body that does wonders and cures - medicine can at best help it, at worst hinder it. And we actually know much less about how to cure things than we are (mis)led to believe by the medical establishment.

Also, don't forget that for doctors ultimately, you're just another patient. If you die, oh well, the patient died. You're not the first, nor the last that will die. They're used to this. In fact, doctors learn to become emotionally detached from their patients, precisely because they get to see so many dying people, and they can't be emotionally attached to them all the time, or they would lose their mind. They see patients dying in hospitals since their very early days, in medical school, training to be doctors. They're used to others dying. They learn they have to give so and so treatment, and if the patient dies - no big deal for them. Because they practice this detachment, they also don't really have skin in the game - be very afraid when someone doesn't have skin in the game. Your doctor won't lose his head if you die. He has no skin in the game. Therefore you should be highly skeptical of doctors, lest you die earlier than your allotted time because of them. Make use of them - but be skeptical of them too. Use your own brain - don't believe it merely because experts claim it is so. The doctor is rapidly becoming the equivalent of the priest in the old days - people believe him, regardless of what he says.

And by the way - doctors themselves are one of the leading causes of death - through a process widely known as iatrogenesis in medicine. Solving your problems isn't as simple as going to the doctor - going to the doctor may get you killed as well. You have to take everything into account.

But they don't have to fix my home life or whatever. They have to fix my attitude/response to my home life so that the depressive response is changed with a different kind of response. And medicine isn't helpful in doing this. — Agustino

Utter rubbish.

They've spent their time educating themselves how to treat disorders according to classifications made by others like them. They necessarily see through the prism of the classifications, and can never help the person they face. And I'm not the only one who believes so - there are academics who have written books supporting similar conclusions. — Agustino

You make it sound as though there isn't millions of hours put into researching mental illness, and medicine in general. Also strange that you distrust doctors by appealing to academics.

I generally don't trust my doctors anyway. I have a decent grasp of medicine, and can always discuss and look at different possibilities with doctors. I had conditions in the past, for example, that doctors recommended surgery for, and that I treated without any kind of surgery after I pressured the doctor in the treatment I wanted (which by the way worked, even though the doctor was "skeptical" about it at first). — Agustino

You're merely critiquing how everyone should think about their health, which I agree with. Yet, I trust doctors, unlike you. Why? As I said before, and as you sort-of do above, you don't have to stick with a doctor that doesn't sit well with you. But when expertise is on the line, you best do what your doctor thinks is right, because you're not a doctor, he/she is.

No I'm not blaming them, I'm simply stating a fact. If you have the bad luck of having such a condition, doctor or no doctor - you're still fucked. The doctor will help - but only very minimal kind of help. — Agustino

The sentiment here is still borderline "who cares, because you'll die anyway." We'll all die because we live, but does that mean what we do to better our lives is meaningless or in the end futile? I wouldn't say so.

If they were left alone, they wouldn't have been much worse than after treatment. — Agustino

Ah, so you admit to your family member being helped and getting better. Yet, you still don't see "better" as worth seeking merely because "they're already fucked." I don't get it. Shouldn't your "Christian" conviction have you wanting someone to get better, even if it's not fixable? If you think that faith in Christ is a guaranteed fix, then perhaps you don't understand the different between treating something and fixing something.

It's just a fact that doctors can't really help if you're really in trouble. They can do somethings for you, but generally not that much. — Agustino

If this were true, we wouldn't have hospitals and doctors and lots and lots and lots of people who have been able to thrive and prosper because of modern medicine. It's absolutely baffling to me that you're attempting to deny what I find to be the only bit of progress in the world, which is modern medicine.

Well I felt like I couldn't at the time. But that doesn't mean that I actually couldn't. You can learn to disbelieve your feelings with regards to some things. — Agustino

Clinical depression is more than a feeling. You can't just decide all on your lonesome to disbelieve x, y, or z and become magically better.

Well if you have advanced stage cancer - chances are again, that doctors, or no doctors, you're fucked. One of my cousin's grandparents was a doctor. When he got cancer, he refused treatment. Why? Because he understood that if you have cancer, treatment may actually speed up your death, and will make the rest of your life a living hell. — Agustino

This isn't much of a point, really. If I'm clinically depressed, say, it doesn't matter who I am, including if I'm doctor. The illness is what matters, not so much the person that is affected by it.

For example, I have a family friend whose wife had breast cancer in the terminal stage. Even with chemo, she was given a small chance to live. So she refused treatment. Instead she went on a special diet, the cancer went into remission, and she ultimately got cured.

Are you the sort of person that doesn't drive with their seat-belt on because they heard of the occasional instance where doing so actually saved a driver's life, or do you do the sensible thing and drive with your seat-belt on? Your appeal to the rarity of people like your friend's wife breaking from the sensible thing to do doesn't make it logical for you to ignore professionals.

Also, don't forget that for doctors ultimately, you're just another patient. If you die, oh well, the patient died. You're not the first, nor the last that will die. They're used to this. In fact, doctors learn to become emotionally detached from their patients, precisely because they get to see so many dying people, and they can't be emotionally attached to them all the time, or they would lose their mind. — Agustino

You're oversimplifying, here. One indeed has to have a degree of self-detachment in order to perform things like surgery, but to deny that compassion fatigue doesn't affect a lot of those in the medical field would wildly disingenuous. Doctors are people too, as your doctor friend shows, and are still fallen people who make mistakes, do stupid things, and don't always do what's most logical or probably right.

And by the way - doctors themselves are one of the leading causes of death — Agustino

Humanity is the leading cause of human death - bet you didn't know that!

I highly doubt that if I go to a doctor telling them that I am depressed, they would just send me out the door, and not diagnose me with anything. They would diagnose me with something for sure — Agustino

I don't know. You'd have to provide some statistics to back this claim up. It seems perfectly possible and reasonable to me that a doctor, upon hearing about your alleged depression, would not diagnose you with anything and indeed proceed to send you out the door. They have to watch out for people who fake symptoms in order to get prescription drugs, which they plan to abuse.

Utter rubbish. — Heister Eggcart

Justification?

You make it sound as though there isn't millions of hours put into researching mental illness, and medicine in general. Also strange that you distrust doctors by appealing to academics. — Heister Eggcart

Just because there's millions of hours put into it, doesn't mean that it's necessarily yielding good results.

But when expertise is on the line, you best do what your doctor thinks is right, because you're not a doctor, he/she is. — Heister Eggcart

No, when my life is on the line, thinking what's best to do, regardless of who does that thinking, is what's needed. Independent thinking especially - not thinking that's clouded by biases, including medical biases. I may see the situation more clearly than the doctor does in fact. The doctor can only think through the prism of the medical establishment, and quite often not even through that. I still remember when I ended up in the hospital after a severe stomach infection that lasted for 1 week, with fever, diarrhea, not being able to sleep because of the pain etc.. I went there because I wanted them to do my blood tests, and I was sent to the very best gastroenterologist (because I knew someone who worked there) but the stupid doctor wanted to keep me there, and give me intravenous antibiotics and rehydration. And I refused, and I had to bear with their rant about the fact that I'm stubborn blah blah, and then when the blood tests came back, the doctor to go like "Oh yeah, blood tests are excellent, you were right, there is no sign of infection left in your blood". And then they advised me to "drink coke" and take medicine to stop the diarrhea - both advices which I ignored. They also advised me to drink rehydration salts, which was a good idea and I followed it. Firstly, coke, despite their supposed medical expertise, does not harden the stool - that's a medical myth. Why should I trust the "best" doctor in the hospital based on a medical myth? Secondly. taking drugs to stop diarrhea is stupid - your body reacts by having diarrhea because it is trying to get rid of a pathogen that way. You don't "stop" the diarrhea - unless you have to meet the President or something. You let your body do its thing.

So yeah - doctors make mistakes, and they make mistakes more than almost anyone else, because they don't get held accountable for their mistakes. They have nothing to lose in making a mistake. That's very dangerous. And they never know when they make mistakes, precisely because they are never held accountable for them.

I have another example. Back when the doctor recommended me surgery, I went to three doctors to get a single one who would agree to do the surgery under local anesthesia, and not under spinal anesthesia (and I didn't get any who agreed). And guess what I found out! They all wanted to do the spinal anesthesia... why? Not because it was the least likely to cause further complications and would be best for the patient - but because it would be for the doctor's convenience. None of them wanted to have the patient be like "Ah it hurts there", then have to inject a bit more anesthesia, and so forth. So they were willing to take a higher risk for the patient (for example, one of the very rare but possible consequences of spinal anesthesia is cardiac arrest) because in, say 500 cases it would be fine, and in the 501st the patient would have cardiac arrest. But no worries! Who cares? He died. You know... he just died, not my fault. Complication from the surgery. No big deal! It happens!

And funnily enough, I had a relative who had cardiac arrest for the same surgery during spinal anesthesia. They saved him, but still - you get the point. Whereas, in medicine not the most comfortable option for the doctor should be undertaken, because the doctor doesn't want discomfort - but the best for the patient. Many doctors have forgotten that principle - out of sheer laziness.

If this were true, we wouldn't have hospitals and doctors and lots and lots and lots of people who have been able to thrive and prosper because of modern medicine. — Heister Eggcart

I didn't claim that modern medicine hasn't helped people. It has. I'm only arguing that the help is more limited than doctor worship makes it sound like. And a large part of this help comes from better hygiene and prevention (by the way :P ) .

Your appeal to the rarity of people like your friend's wife breaking from the sensible thing to do doesn't make it logical for you to ignore professionals. — Heister Eggcart

If breaking from the sensible thing enables you to save your life, why not? Again - you're judging something to be unintelligent merely because it is unintelligible - I had a thread about this in fact, check it out ;)

And I'm not appealing just to such rarity - my whole experience with the medical establishment, including countless of hours studying medicine by myself point to this. You can ignore all that, of course, and still go your own way. But it's always better to learn something from everyone, I think. I'm not telling you to never go to the doctor - only to be more skeptical of the doctor than your "oh in the end I will still do what the doctor says because he's the expert". No - you should have independent reason to do what the doctor says - not because "he's the expert". That's not an adequate answer. You have your own head that you can judge with. You can read medical papers yourself, you can study your condition, you can understand your condition by yourself. Nothing is stopping you from accessing the same resources doctors have access to. Then indeed discuss with a doctor, and then you'll be in a position to choose wisely.

Sometimes depression can be debilitating and people lose functionality because of it.
This greatly reduces the quality of their lives..
Often they resort to treatment as a last resort, as it is the nature of depression.
So it is only when the depression becomes too much to handle that people suffering then seek treatment.
What the medical field suggests is that you seek treatment not as a last resort but as soon as your functionality is compromised.

So it is not that manageable depression is regarded as an illness, but rather that unmanageable depression is an illness and it is an illness that often gets worse without treatment.

It seems to me you're saying what is wrong, in some moral sense, with being depressed. — Moliere

Not explicitly.

However, there is a negative implicit connotation with being depressed in society, especially in the workplace.

As if having depression is a failure of oneself, and the reason people seek treatment is not out of need but is because they perceive themselves as being wrong and perceive others as perceiving them as wrong. — Moliere

Indeed, in the U.S where you have this stereotype (particularly strong in regards to males) to so to speak, pick oneself up by their bootstraps - having depression is often viewed as a failure and one feels a burden and quite real pain of feeling ostracized from society. (Which evidently aggravates the illness.)

Though this is becoming less of a problem, nowadays, than in the past, it is still a very strong prejudice held in the workplace with our obsession with efficiency and being productive.

If that be the case then, certainly, there's nothing morally wrong with depression. The reason one seeks treatment is the same as the reason one seeks treatment for chronic pain -- to feel better. Not because they are wrong for having depression. — Moliere

No, there is nothing objectively wrong with having depression; but, one feels much more burdened socially having depression than say having a broken wrist or leg.

About depression... I have some questions.
For the past 2 years I just don't feel good, and it started when I started philosophy.
Learning about philosophical pessimism made me seriously depressed. I just don't know if I just continue living or just end it all. I see psychologist and psychiatrist, but none of it seems to help. If life is so bad, why continue living?
So the question is, am I experiencing clinical depression or am I depressed about nature of life and just can't deal with it? My mood elevates day to day, one day I feel good, next day suicidal. Not sure what to do next.

No, there is nothing objectively wrong with having depression; but, one feels much more burdened socially having depression than say having a broken wrist or leg — Question

That's true. People don't view it in the same way. And I agree with you -- especially in the workplace. I'm more open about my depression with friends or in social spaces than I am at work or with people I don't know very well for that very reason. Socially speaking there's a kind of taboo surrounding mental health, and I agree -- again -- with you when you say that depression, and admitting that you have depression (even to yourself) runs counter to classical forms of masculinity.

I suppose that's why I say that depression is identical to having chronic pain -- in an effort to make it viewed in that manner. Depression isn't just being down or feeling pain. It's very particular, and one can feel both happiness or sadness concurrently with depression. (at least with the kind that I have. I am drawn to understand that not everyone's is like mine, though I am far from alone in my experiences too)

Cause and effect could be hard to discern here, were you stuck with a certain inkling which made you turn to philosophy and was it the philosophy which made a possible natural inclination worse?

Swinging from feeling good to suicidal from day to day would make me think things are not quite as their supposed to be (and I would usually encourage people to experience as much of the emotional pallet as possible).

You seem to be of the opinion that life is bad and not worth continuing and that the aid you are getting now does not alleviate your view on things; the distinction between a temporal depression and a clinical depression is made in this thread as well as the observation that a temporal depression might lead to a clinical depression, taking this into account, your inquiry into the nature of life might be biased toward the negative.

You "might" be right in you assessment of life but the value judgements which follow for you might not be "wholesome" so to speak. I would advice to entertain the possibility that you're biased at the moment, investigating philosophical pessimism when you are not able to negate the conclusions of such stances or even seeking to have your own views confirmed could prove to be a hint towards such a bias.

Take care.

Speaking of evolution, why did we evolve in such a way that we can be 'depressed'? — Bitter Crank

I suppose because the god of evolution was imperfect and some of our attributes are not at all beneficial, whether that be depression, schizophrenia, pancreatic cancer, diabetes, a propensity for ingrown toenails, or general ugliness. Some of us are just more destined to the Darwinian dust bin than others.

Depression seems to be a natural state that the body embraces when afflicted with continual stress. — Question

Maybe. Some people under great stress don't get depressed and some people seem to be depressed for no good reason. All things considered, I would think that not being depressed is better than being depressed even if it were caused by stress. For that reason, if we could flip the depression off, we should.

What's wrong with being depressed? — Question

What's wrong with a backache? It's just your body telling you that you're old and not smart enough to not lift boxes. It would seem, though, that if I could wake up without really bad back pain, I'd do that. And better than just stopping the symptoms (which might be protective against my stupidity), shouldn't I embrace a cure to the underlying problem if it were available? It just seems that if a chronically depressed patient could have his underlying basis for his funk erased, he should attempt it, just as a chronic back injured person should accept a bionic back if one were available.

You're sort of asking why we should fight our God given natural state because, after all, an all good god wouldn't have given us something for no good reason. End your depression for the same reason you shave down your ugly nose. It makes you happy.

The potential for existential depressions (aside from a purely physiological clinical depression) is something that goes hand in hand with the human capacity to be conscious, for me consciousness goes with an increased capacity to suffer.

I find it a bit shallow to treat the concept of depression as a particular which is selected for by the "Darwinian dust bin". among other things there is terror management theory and other theories which point towards the observation that being able to "see reality for what it is" isn't necessarily beneficial at first glance. Following from that, seeing things "as they are" while being able to cope with the potential strain it might pose on our cognitive capacity might prove to be something which is evolutionary beneficial.

In my opinion it's a mistaken conflation to equate the whole concept of depression with more obvious, and more overly physical ailments.

shouldn't I embrace a cure to the underlying problem (back ache) if it were available? — Hanover

Exoskeleton. They're on the way -- maybe 2030? the Wall Street Journal said. Hang in there. You won't leap out of bed in the morning, but your exoskeleton will, dragging you along with it. You don't want to go to work, but your exoskeleton does (it likes messing around with the other exoskeletons) so that's where you're going to go. You want to go for a swim, but your exoskeleton hates water, so... no surf for you.

I see psychologist and psychiatrist, but none of it seems to help. If life is so bad, why continue living? — rossii

Why don't the visits help? Depression usually takes a long time to treat and get better. I tend to always feel better despite taking so many medications. I was on a few in the past; but, now am much better overall due to them. Don't believe the utter crap online saying that antidepressants are evil or bad. They have their use and are effective despite what people say. It just takes time for them to work.

Best regards and don't give up.

You're sort of asking why we should fight our God given natural state because, after all, an all good god wouldn't have given us something for no good reason. End your depression for the same reason you shave down your ugly nose. It makes you happy. — Hanover

Notice how there has to be something against which the "anti" prefix in "anti-depressant" to be opposed towards. My point is that there's no point in "fighting with depression". Simply accept it and move on. Just like pretty much everything in life.

That is unless your a judgemental prick and like to see the world through your shades of black and white.

Yes. I see it in much the same way as yourself, it's pretty natural. However, it should ideally come and go. If it doesn't go by itself then there is something that's hindering it, like how a bullet or a splinter has to be removed before full healing can occur. Full acceptance is key. But it may be all the mucus accumulating in your gut that might be causing it, so something should be done in that sense.

Sure, and you shouldn't take migraine meds but should just accept your headache and move on, and please don't be a judgmental prick while having a migraine. Just deal with it. Nature gave you this migraine for a good reason. Embrace it.

Cause and effect could be hard to discern here, were you stuck with a certain inkling which made you turn to philosophy and was it the philosophy which made a possible natural inclination worse? — Gooseone

Well, I was never really into philosophy, I was researching something completely different and found out about pessimism and antinatalism. After reading more about these things I became extremely depressed, suicidal - these theories were the opposite of my view of life. I wouldn't say that I was a optimist back then, but I viewed life as something worth living, I enjoyed many aspects of it (in fact I still do enjoy many things, but thoughts of pessimism just ruin it for me). Pessimists consider everyone else deluded about life, because their view is the most accurate. Life is suffering. So am I deluded about life, that I don't view it this way? I myself don't subscribe to philosophical pessimism, but maybe I'm wrong, maybe this is the truth.

Also I don't see the logic between saying life is suffering and continuing to live. If there's so much suffering in the world, why go on? Or is it just the depression talking?

Been living with this in my head for two years now and don't know what to do.

Maybe it is all just the depression talking, but some days are really unbearable and only thing I want to do is sleep.

You seem to be of the opinion that life is bad and not worth continuing and that the aid you are getting now does not alleviate your view on things — Gooseone

I didn't consider life good or bad. I just accepted it and tried to enjoy it as much as possible. According to pessimists life is bad, ugly place not worth continuing. This is what I deal in my head all day, this conflict what I feel about life and what pessimist say about life.

After reading more about these things I became extremely depressed, suicidal - these theories were the opposite of my view of life. I wouldn't say that I was a optimist back then, but I viewed life as something worth living, I enjoyed many aspects of it (in fact I still do enjoy many things, but thoughts of pessimism just ruin it for me). — rossii

Depression seems to be a natural state that the body embraces when afflicted with continual stress. — Question

Stress is the result of conflict; in physics it is forces in opposition, in psychology it is emotions in opposition. In rossii's comment above, one can see the conflict between rational philosophical thought and unthinking experience. There may be another conflict behind that, but I say what I see. A classic environmental stressor is a traffic jam. One is in the business of driving, but one cannot drive. The obvious solution to relieve this stress, if one cannot escape the jam, is to depress the feeling of wanting to get somewhere fast.

The problem with this is that one does not have separate volume controls for each emotion, so in losing the urgency to move, one loses also any positive feeling one might have. One enters the void. And the problem with entering the feeling void is that one has no feeling to turn the volume back up. When the traffic clears, one moves forward, but one has lost the positive feeling of moving forward.

One might say that depression is an excess of emotional control.

And then one seeks to control the depression... it is indeed a potentially lethal vicious circle, and it becomes more prevalent as society imposes more tight limits on the expression of feeling. Which it necessarily does in the case of drivers, because road-rage is also potentially lethal. I hope the example can be readily generalised.

People are depressed because the conditions they live in are intolerable. You need to fix the conditions, not the person. Self-help is garbage, we're animals affected by our environment. The stigma surrounding depression and its medicalization is because people don't want to think about their surroundings being bad, so depression must be some mysterious thing that just whacks up the chemicals in your head for no reason, and requires an equally senseless treatment of drugs to right those chemicals.

The particular group of people who you're pointing to (and please not that not everyone who is depressed belongs to this group) are depressed mostly because they can't come to terms with the conditions that they're living in. I could complain and be depressed whole day that "Uhh society isn't how I'd want it to be, how sad man" Do you see me doing that? No! But I could do it.

This guy's living conditions are also probably intolerable according to many (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kxSrPD__BA). Do you see him being depressed? No. What makes the difference? The attitude one has in front of whatever the world is. The world doesn't have to be the way you want it to be for you to be happy. All that has to be the case is that you have hope. This guy for example - imagine him when he was in his late teens. According to most, he was hopeless. Would never get married, would never do anything great in the world, would never have sex, etc. And yet he could live like that. But then we have people - *crocodile tears* - uhhh uhhh the girl I like doesn't like me back! End of the world! Or uuh uuh Im too ugly, no one wants to have sex with me - or uhhh aahh! I lack skill, I'm not good enough to be a basketball star! End of times! >:O Give me a break, give me a break...

Sure, and you shouldn't take migraine meds but should just accept your headache and move on, and please don't be a judgmental prick while having a migraine. Just deal with it. Nature gave you this migraine for a good reason. Embrace it. — Hanover

I think comparing depression with a broken leg or foot would be apter in this case. Anyway, I fail to see your point here.

No. What makes the difference? The attitude one has in front of whatever the world is. — Agustino

I doubt the attitude makes as much difference as people think. I agree it's possible to have a bad attitude and ruin even the best living conditions (though even this is not that powerful, and can't make things as bad as being starving). But it's not possible for a good attitude to remedy bad conditions. Feelings and attitude aren't magic.

Also, the ability to have a good or bad attitude is just another living condition, and is also not magic, so it doesn't really help.

(though even this is not that powerful, and can't make things as bad as being starving — The Great Whatever

Well sure, but it depends. I agree if you're starving, you have no roof over your head, you're out in the cold, and so forth - like some beggars, then yes, mere attitude won't make you any happier. But most people who struggle with depression aren't in those circumstances. Although - I will say that even someone who is in those circumstances, while a change in attitude may not make them any happier, it could set them on a road towards changing their circumstances and finding the help they need.

But it's not possible for a good attitude to remedy bad conditions. — The Great Whatever

It is - because attitude precedes actions. If you have a bad attitude and a bad situation, then you'll not act in ways which can change your situation and make it better.

Also, the ability to have a good or bad attitude is just another living condition, and is also not magic, so it doesn't really help. — The Great Whatever

Yes but it makes one focus on what's important in order to become capable to alter the situation if this is at all possible. Having a good attitude isn't a guarantee of success - but it definitely gives you the best odds.

One might say that depression is an excess of emotional control. — unenlightened

I have always held the view (from personal experience) that depression and other mood disorders (how I hate that word, 'disorders') are a result of an excess of emotion. There is no benchmark to gauge one's level of emotional response to an event or experience; but, usually when someone is left to internalize it as opposed to a healthy externalization of one's emotions, then I suppose depression is the result one is left with.

Notice how almost every drug (apart from the newer one's) are antagonistic to one's level of experience that is governed by the various neurotransmitters in one's brain.

It seems paradoxical that one ought effectively suppress one's emotions further to reach remission from depression.

I didn't consider life good or bad. I just accepted it and tried to enjoy it as much as possible. According to pessimists life is bad, ugly place not worth continuing. This is what I deal in my head all day, this conflict what I feel about life and what pessimist say about life. — rossii

I'm no doctor and don't pretend to be one; but, try some lithium. It's as harmless as one can get and is quite effective as an adjunct to most medications along with being a potent anti-suicidal drug. I take 5 mg (120mg of lithium orotate) every day and feel quite serene and calm. Goods stuff for your body also.

I'm no doctor and don't pretend to be one; but, try some lithium. It's as harmless as one can get and is quite effective as an adjunct to most medications along with being a potent anti-suicidal drug. I take 5 mg (120mg of lithium orotate) every day and feel quite serene and calm. Goods stuff for your body also. — Question

I'm not a doctor either, but I have studied medicine for quite a long time and have spoken to a few doctors. Regarding lithium - it does have potential side effects but they are rare and will often happen when lithium levels reach too high in the blood. There generally isn't a good source of lithium naturally, so many people have towards the lower levels, which may be responsible for their feelings of depression. However - lithium treatments should only be undertaken AFTER a blood test has been run, and the lithium levels present are below 0.4mmol/L (these limit levels would differ from country to country depending on what the labs there set as the mean concentration for people). Afterwards, treatment with lithium should occur under the supervision of a doctor, and with a monitoring plan for the blood levels of it. This has sensible information after a quick read:

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/medicines/depression/a636/lithium-medication/

The level of lithium I'm taking is far lower than the typical clinical dose range of 300 mg or even more.

As far as I know 5 mg is a baby dose that can be taken safely every day or every other day.