It seems self-evident, one just needs to connect the dots.

Other than that, William Styron recovered that way, for example.

Doesn't seem self-evident to me but I know this is a commonly held view. I've seen many people - dozens - recover from depression using counselling and medication. But it doesn't work for everyone and can be ineptly done.

Psychology and psychiatry take a dim view of humans.

Psychology and psychiatry take a dim view of humans. — baker

I think that is true some of the time. They are certainly a very popular target of hate in pop culture.

Is depression the default human state?

Whether it is or is not seems debatable, but given that state we're in (mass hunger, stress, rampant disease, to name but a few of our miseries), we should be (depressed). Have you seen the global happiness index? It's not very encouraging I'm told.

Even the country that's made happiness its national vision/mission (Bhutan) [re: happiness economics] is struggling to solve high suicide rates.

Remember the 1% are the ones who are really, truly happy. If we compare the world population to an adult (mass-wise), male human, that works out to be roughly 680 gm, the mass of the heart. Keeping the 1% happy (our heart's in the right place)! :smile:

I thought the same whenever I was taking part in this thread. Kierkegaard is one of the most important philosophers ever. His existentialism is very important to get along in some personal issues. Apart from his ideas, the personal life of Kierkegaard is interesting too and we can see what he was suffering back in the day to write all his essays later on. My favorite work of him is "the concept of anxiety" but I am looking for a good edition of "fear and trembling" — javi2541997

I agree, he is definitely one of (if not "the") most underrated philosophers of all time. I think this is because of his heavy emphasis on religiousness, which is a major turn off for most thinkers who are aligned with the modern ethos. I also think that modern philosophy has a heavy disdain for his unrestrained, plato-esque style of reasoning. Its unfortunate because, as you say, his existentialism is very important to get along in some personal issues, it has certainly impacted me in positive ways I could have never concieved.

I've read both of "the concept of anxiety" and "fear and trembling"...genius stuff. But my favorite is "Concluding Unscientific Postscript".

Kierkegaard is one of the most important philosophers ever. — javi2541997

IMO, Kierkegaard is far more influential than "important" as a philosopher. His thought, at least as I've understood it, amounts to an overly-prolix argument for a "teleological suspension of" the Other (i.e. "philosophical suicide" ~Camus; "totality" ~Levinas) which for me is defeated by Freethought or Spinozism before him and then again by Pragmatism or Absurdism after him.

Kierkegaard is far more influential than "important" — 180 Proof

180 proof, you are right. I did not use the correct word. Philosophers tend to be influential thanks to their theories and essays. Kierkegaard, in this case was influential (and is still) on existentialism. Works as Fear and Trembling or The concept of anxiety reflect the suffering of man on uncertainty and existence.

Is "existentialism" still a viable philosophical position (or commitment) any longer in these post-postmodern times?

I think yes. More than ever. I am living in a generation which is stagnant due to a lot of existential crises: Coronavirus, 2008 real state bubble, and now a war a few meters of our home. If this context doesn’t lead us to existentialism, I don’t know what would be.

Psychology and psychiatry take a dim view of humans.
— baker

I think that is true some of the time. They are certainly a very popular target of hate in pop culture. — Tom Storm

Said pop culture misses the point. Psychology and psychiatry work in favor of capitalism. Capitalism wants people to focus on themselves, isolated from society, to see themselves as flawed and thus needing all those products and services that capitalism so readily provides. Psychology and psychiatry do just this: they get people to focus on themselves, to lose sight of the big picture, to see themselves as the source of their problems. This way, people don't rebel against the system (they don't even see the system), but they just buy, buy, buy, consume, consume, consume. And capitalism, psychology, and psychiatry are happy, while the people are miserable.

Another common view of the subject - the Marxist critique of 'helping professions' I used to hold this view myself.

This way, people don't rebel against the system (they don't even see the system), but they just buy, buy, buy, consume, consume, consume. And capitalism, psychology, and psychiatry are happy, while the people are miserable. — baker

I think you need to work on this part of your argument. People actually get better, regain control and an ability to fight the system and if psychology is working, people are less miserable and more effective in life. Other than that, you summarised the anti-therapy type argument pretty well.

People actually get better, regain control and an ability to fight the system and if psychology is working, people are less miserable and more effective in life. — Tom Storm

Of course, if they can become successful capitalists (to whatever extent that is possible for them, given their socioeconomic status), then they are indeed less miserable and more effective in life. They might even "fight the system". But they are still consumers at heart.

Today’s humanity, that is me and you, are living dead — sharing the unhealable inner wound of disillusionment that cannot be healed. The basic reason for this is not to be found in the injustice of social order, the worsening of life conditions, or particular tragic events, although all these cause great suffering. As we mature collectively and personally, as our power to think, communicate, learn and feel grows, as our abilities allow us to penetrate more deeply into the ambiguity and uncertainty of reality, we become less susceptible to illusions. The rise of consciousness and disillusionment comes at the cost of unbearable emotional suffering. For those who are not guided by illusions, the reality is painful in its every aspect: life hurts, thinking hurts, love hurts, and there is no cure for this (well, except for lobotomy).

The modern existential analyst Alice Holzhey-Kunz rightly claims one should not consider those who are particularly susceptible to depression as having a specific psychological disorder. In her view, a predisposition to depression rather suggests a hypersensitivity to reality (which leads to the incapacity to generate illusions that would mediate reality to make it acceptable). We are facing an epidemic of depression because we are becoming more sensitive to reality.
​
We are living dead, for whom committing suicide is less painful than to go on as the heroes, the survivors of our lives. But all the most unbearable suffering is worth it, because of what we are at the end of this deadly path: a collection of scars that our lives left us with, beautiful revolutionary monsters. Only those who are not detached from reality, who don’t escape the great pain of facing it, retain the power to change it.
​
By trying to deprive a person of emotional suffering and fostering happiness, popular types of psychotherapy ultimately support detachment from reality, the reduction of consciousness, the neutralization of thinking, and limitations on profound layers of interhuman intimacy.

Within the perspective of popular psychology, we are weak sick creatures who need to be numbed with antidepressants, so we can be happy or at least feel no emotional pain. In fact, what popular types of psychotherapy are trying to heal us from is our greatness and power that comes with the cost of unbearable suffering.
​
Those who promise eternal happiness and an absence of suffering are manipulating you or are themselves frightened and seeking escape in illusions. Happiness is unattainable in the context of a raised consciousness, where the only possible form of joy is the masochistic pleasure of suffering from interaction with reality.
​
Necropsychoanalysis is a practice of the commons, a custodian of a space where we are “allowed not to enjoy” (Slavoj Žižek), a space of universal human pain, through which we are all connected. A negative psychoanalyst is a medium connecting common survival experiences, communicating the message that each of us is not alone in our struggle and inner pain.

Thanks for that insightful post.
I wanted to object to some of the points made, but I couldn't. It rings so true.