Depression is nothing more than lack of self-esteem and identity. The depressed doesn't believe in themselves, they don't believe they have a destiny, they have no faith - nor do they work at creating it. — Agustino

These are definitely some causes of depression. But there's also the "dark night of the soul" that somebody mentioned; the general, unidentifiable existential dread. I wouldn't make the assumption that that shade of depression is caused by low self-esteem. I'd venture to say it's the purest form; a depression born from searching for a meaning in the world and finding none.

What causes depression? Expectations that you deserve X or Y to be given to you. — Agustino

Wait, so low self-esteem (your definition of depression) is caused by unrealistic expectations? Couldn't low self-esteem just as easily be caused by a lack of the receiving of proper care as a child, or any other form of abuse? Neglect, etc? I'd say it's more accurate to say that those childhood abuses lead to low self-esteem, which leads to feelings of depression, for instance. Unrealistic expectations about the world are often a result of that process. They feed depression, and depression feeds them, but I wouldn't assume that the unrealistic expectations are the cause of that cycle. They could be, or they could not be, from case to case.

Who the hell are you to complain and ask why you're suffering, etc.? — Agustino

Tough love has it's place and use, and is a form of wisdom, but the other half of that wisdom is knowing when it to use it, and knowing when to offer someone a gentler form of love. Not all depressed people respond well to tough love, in fact, most probably don't. There's a different prescription for everyone. I can see why this would be your approach, because you think depression comes from unrealistic expectations of what someone deserves, which would be the appropriate time to use the "get your ass in gear" approach. Jesus over-turned the money changers tables, but he also poured oil on the feet of the prostitute.

God told Job no point arguing with me. Who are you to question my decisions? I am the Lord your God, and if I decide to let you suffer, then you will suffer. — Agustino

I don't interpret Job that way. It's meaning is certainly hidden (I think of that Rabbinic tradition of asking questions, not giving answers). People tend to focus on God's epic soliloquy at the end, as you quoted, but why is the vast majority of the book a discussion between Job and his friends, and some soliloquies from Job, etc? The focus of the book is on Job's "unjust" suffering, it would seem. But that's just the thing; the reality is that no suffering is unjust, because suffering comes to the morally blameless and the morally repugnant alike; indeed, suffering is exactly like the great beasts, the huge winds, the storms that God evokes at the end; suffering is heedless, mindless; it's the great tsunami of the human condition; it spares no one, it heeds no cries for help. And why? Because God does not judge based on moral standing. This is the whole crux of the Gospel; indeed, Job is a prophetic book in it's own way. God is a God of unconditional love. No moral perfection that I can attain can put me in or out of good standing with God. God is only ever a being of open arms.

Also be sure to recall the chiastic structure of Hebrew Poetry. "Seven times seven, indeed, Seventy times Seventy." The structure of Job is almost chiastic in a way, and this would indicate that the "intensification" lies in the middle of the book.

There's a certain strength of the will that they (we) lack. there's a certain build-up of emotional and spiritual detritus that leads to an inability to cope with anything, or deal with anything real. This is what leads to the "alternate reality" of the depressed, the addicted, the suicidal. It is exactly that, and don't mistake it: this world is an alternate reality; a nightmare world. — Noble Dust

This is the reason for pointing out the necessity for articulating our capacity to voice autonomous thoughts and it is essentially a practice. The nightmare is likened to a bad dream where we cannot talk or scream or even move our body, trapped in a reality we know but cannot express in anyway. This is both epistemological and cognitive; if you think about PTSD, for instance, where our brains' limbic system automatically as a defence mechanism fails to process an anxious or difficult trauma-related experience and thus the experience does not become 'past-tense' but instead falls into the subconscious. The emotional reaction to that trauma continues as one identifies threats and risks similar to the same distress and shock of something that happened previously but the brain has yet to consolidate. This is also inclusive of the constant elevation of glucocorticoid that disjoints the lymbic system' capacity. To consolidate that experience and enable it to become past-tense is only possible by communicating about it, giving the very trauma a voice that one may not have had as a child and the very reason for the brain' inability to turn it into a former memory. When they do this, the emotional distress, increased feelings of threat and intrusive thoughts that cause irrational behaviour almost always dissipates and it is why the 'powerlessness' transforms to feeling empowered, and that is sensually our capacity to autonomously speak and accept the genuine reality of our circumstances.

It is not simply just chemical imbalances of the brain but the epistemic conflict between our external experiences with our private language, the intentionality whereby the intentional mental state is not accurately projected and the emotional display almost works as a signal to identify an error that we are unable to articulate; reality is what we are told and concede to something we really don't understand. The problem is that people in such states naturally seek to avoid the feelings associated and so they delay the process of recovery but making themselves even more unwell (not taking care of themselves) and thus the issue conflates or lay dormant. They can make a change, it just takes a series of steps that broadens the sensual experiences into a state of autonomy and build the courage to speak your own voice. Feeling empowered through autonomous thinking is possible only when one takes responsibility and control for their own lives rather than maintaining the same dependence we 'believe' is a given as we did when children.

Perhaps I misread it, my bad.

Your welcome, and thanks for your further info. I've heard plenty of these before, and have attempted some. It's a useful list, though; I'm inspired to do more of my own research.

Excellent thoughts.

There is something important here, but to put it this way does not make it easy to get at. Perhaps one could put it more open-endedly, that there may be a function, that depression 'works' in some way as a response to the world. Another question that I like better is, "what are you depressing?" — unenlightened

It is almost likened to a dependence on the self-defence mechanism itself that we use as a way to reduce the anxiety that is present when we genuinely confront the reality of why we feel a certain way and sometimes that reality is not pleasant that one would be happier (even if depressed) by remaining in the delusion, much more than they would confronting the reality of their circumstances. A woman in an abusive relationship, as an example, may have come from a history of abuse that the familiarity to that experience is more comforting in her reality than the idea of being on her own and why she may continuously return to an abusive partner.

Again, someone may not love their partner but the suggestion to leave them would cause a number of other 'losses' that it far outweighs it, thus one forms a certain tolerance that they blindly conform and silence their own voice to maintain a relationship that they are really unhappy in. To not lose everything else outweighs in happiness the feelings of depression or anxiety that the unhappiness of being with someone you don't love induces. We trick ourselves and very well indeed.

So, comparatively, it is to a degree that they enjoy and perhaps unconsciously work to maintain and continue the justification of depression or anxiety as it protects them from ever facing the real monster that may just be too overwhelming for them. To articulate the right language to speak and fight this monster takes time but for some, they are on auto-pilot and the defence mechanism has completely taken over.

Again, someone may not love their partner but the suggestion to leave them would cause a number of other 'losses' that it far outweighs it, thus one forms a certain tolerance that they blindly conform and silence their own voice to maintain a relationship that they are really unhappy in. — TimeLine

Bin there, done that, got the scars. "I am not the sort of person that walks out when the relationship gets difficult." - is an attractive identity, that might look from the outside more like a doormat.

To articulate the right language to speak and fight this monster takes time... — TimeLine

Well to change the situation in the world takes time, to say what needs to be said, or whatever, but my experience is that the change of mind is like flash of insight, or a burden dropped; it is instantaneous. "Actually, fuck it, I am the sort of person that walks out when the show is over." Years of misery can end with a simple insight.

"Hey, guys, you don't have to be miserable isolated and numb any more, just fuck the whole thing." But of course when one is in that world, that relationship, saying that seems both false and insulting.

Edit: And absolutely, get some sleep. There's plenty of interesting stuff out there and a ton of potions, diets, routines, etc. Try stuff out until you get a really good regular sleep the way you recharge the batteries for some energy.

Well to change the situation in the world takes time, to say what needs to be said, or whatever, but my experience is that the change of mind is like flash of insight, or a burden dropped; it is instantaneous. "Actually, fuck it, I am the sort of person that walks out when the show is over." Years of misery can end with a simple insight. — unenlightened

Spot on, but the distress previous to that epiphany, the years of anxiety or depression is the emotional language telling yourself what you already knew. That instantaneous 'actually, fuck it' experience is the very moment you become empowered to autonomously make a decision that you have already long wanted despite it all, the temptations in particular that always make you doubt yourself, makes you think it will be ok and that you should be happy, that in fact you must be wrong. You are unable to articulate why you keep things going because of something behaviourally deeper or because you silenced your autonomy through conformism in order to make your environment survive and your environment knows exactly what to do to keep you thinking that way.

It is the reason why when we transcend to that level of autonomous reasoning, we are always gobsmacked at how easy it actually is and really wonder why it took us years to do something so simple.

Bin there, done that, got the scars. "I am not the sort of person that walks out when the relationship gets difficult." - is an attractive identity, that might look from the outside more like a doormat. — unenlightened

(Y) A perfect analogy for the powerlessness one feels when conforming to make things work, sacrificing your own identity for such an unwarranted and futile outcome. It is like pretending to yourself that life is wholly determined and that there is nothing you can do about it, waiting for things to end or begin independent of you. It is thus a lack of taking control of your own life and decisions.

I also totally agree with sleep, this is vital and to get the right sleep you need to eat right and exercise (thus take care of yourself).

Bin there, done that, got the scars. "I am not the sort of person that walks out when the relationship gets difficult." - is an attractive identity, that might look from the outside more like a doormat. — unenlightened

Depends. If you have strength of character you won't be a doormat. You'll be an invitation to something more. A doormat is characterised by need - a doormat is captive to their needs, self-centered and will do anything to get them fulfilled. A doormat is obsessed and attached to winning.

A great man on the other hand can tolerate the pettiness of those smaller than them because he doesn't need anything from them. The person who doesn't need anything from the world has conquered the world. He is free. He is always a winner, because if the world refuses him, he never gives up. That person can demand from the world, and the world will do all it can to fulfil his demands - because it will be in awe at his character. He will start by being laughed at, but soon he will be seen as a god amongst men. The character of a great man overcomes the pettiness of those around him. His willingness to suffer, his willingness to go to the very ends of the world. The way he gambles with his life, as if it were nothing - a petty thing to be thrown away - that is what raises him above the rest.

Wilful misunderstanding...


The great man, the great man, historians his memory
Artists his senses, thinkers his brain
Labourers his growth
Explorers his limbs
And soldiers his death each second
And mystics his rebirth each second
Businessmen his nervous system
No-hustle men his stomach
Astrologers his balance
Lovers his loins
His skin it is all patchy
But soon will reach one glowing hue
God is his soul
Infinity his goal
The mystery his source
And civilisation he leaves behind
Opinions are his fingernails


Maya Maya
All this world is but a play
Be thou the joyful player

https://genius.com/The-incredible-string-band-maya-lyrics

Yes, but how can you not recognise the constraints you're under? Most people are very good at this part - too good. They always find the reasons why something can't be done. — Agustino

No, you mean they always invent reasons why something can't be done, coming up with constraints they're not actually under.

Your rhetoric suggests that willpower alone can break constraints one step at a time. But willpower has to take constraints into account when doing so, not theology.

You may negate any of your attempts at persuasion and may neither take advices nor complaints from me but your "God gave you that so you have the duty to" paradigm surely doesn't fool me.

No, you mean they always invent reasons why something can't be done, coming up with constraints they're not actually under. — Noblosh

Not necessarily - they may also overestimate the constraints they're under, blow them out of proportions.

Your rhetoric suggests that willpower alone can break constraints one step at a time. — Noblosh

Willpower can break passivity and inaction.

You may negate any of your attempts at persuasion and may neither take advices nor complaints from me but your "God gave you that so you have the duty to" paradigm surely doesn't fool me. — Noblosh

Does it mean I'm trying to persuade every single time I tell you something about my own beliefs? I don't think so. Even an atheist can understand the meaning of "God gave you that so you have the duty to" -> you didn't create yourself nor are you responsible entirely for who you are - so you have a duty to the world (which gave you everything).

It is actually telling that you mentioned Thoreau. Well over a decade ago now when I was young... — TimeLine

Wow. Thank you very much for the insightful and helpful post, both personal and transpersonal at the same time. Much there to ponder. It added much to this discussion, and to the forum, imho. Well done. (Y) (L)

We do learn by making leaps of insight, of course. Funny thing about that, about twisting science data to support a paradigm! See, the idea is, that we gradually learn and get better at things, because neurologically new behavioral patterns cause new neural structures to form, or different neurons start communicating and gradually moving closer together, the more you do it.

So, they had these rats, and they were recording them getting better at mazes and such, and their neural activity, and the data made it appear as if they were getting gradually better because they generalized it over time. Truth was of course, that they were clearly having insightful moments that instantaneously made them better in some respects at what they were doing, and they would continue like that until another epiphany.

Depression also goes by another name, which I was wondering what some of you think about. Namely, 'learned-helplessness'. There's also a less stigmatizing name called, 'failure to adapt'.

What do you think about these names? Do they contribute to understanding depression?

Here's a cool video on learned helplessness:

Depression also goes by another name, which I was wondering what some of you think about. Namely, 'learned-helplessness'. — Question

I think learned helplessness might be relevant to what's going on in the mind of a depressive. The thing is, learned helplessness experiments were about specific situations. The elephant in the video learned to be helpless abut the rope tied to its leg. But where's the evidence that learned helplessness is also general as in the case of depression? When we are depressed we aren't depressed about one thing. It's more of a mood thing. It would be interesting if there were experiments on generalized helplessness.

It would be interesting if there were experiments on generalized helplessnes — Purple Pond

I think generalized helplessness would just be a collection of different "ropes" tied to one's psyche.

you didn't create yourself nor are you responsible entirely for who you are - so you have a duty to the world (which gave you everything) — Agustino

Doesn't follow. That's my main problem with your reasoning: you come up with unfounded imperatives.
We can owe none our existence because it is not received.

If the world owes me nothing then I owe the world nothing. I do not concern myself with that which doesn't reciprocate.

In psychiatry depression is considered a chemical perturbation and is, obviously,treated as such. How much philosophers will subscribe to this interpretation depends on the degree of difference they see between mind and body. The body affecting the mind is scientific but the mind influencing the body is, as yet, psuedoscience.

In psychiatry depression is considered a chemical perturbation and is, obviously,treated as such. How much philosophers will subscribe to this interpretation depends on the degree of difference they see between mind and body. The body affecting the mind is scientific but the mind influencing the body is, as yet, psuedoscience. — TheMadFool

So, the placebo effect is just superstition gone wild?

So, the placebo effect is just superstition gone wild? — Question

To be frank, the placebo effect is still explainable in terms of chemistry. It doesn't do the job of creating that sharp distinction between mind and body desired by some philosophers (dualists?).

To be frank, the placebo effect is still explainable in terms of chemistry. — TheMadFool

That depends on whether you're willing to make the strict claim that beliefs are all material. But, then if we suppose that for a moment, how do you explain the efficacy of some beliefs? In other words, how or why are they so effective? Makes homeopathy relevant at the dismay of the doctors.

If the world owes me nothing then I owe the world nothing. I do not concern myself with that which doesn't reciprocate. — Noblosh

This is the wrong understanding. The world owes you nothing because it has already given you everything.

That depends on whether you're willing to make the strict claim that beliefs are all material. But, then if we suppose that for a moment, how do you explain the efficacy of some beliefs? In other words, how or why are they so effective? Makes homeopathy relevant at the dismay of the doctors — Question

These are questions which I hope people with the resources to investigate are asking. Speaking for myself I think there's a ray of truth in those subscribing to dualism of some kind. My gut instinct is that the universe has yet to reveal all of its secrets.

If I have everything already, why bother doing anything?

If I have everything already, why bother doing anything? — Noblosh

Don't be purposefully obnoxious. It's not that you have everything (you don't), but rather that everything that you have has been given by the world.

If everything I have the world just gave me, then I have no individual worth and therefore my input is not even worthwhile, so again, why bother?

If everything I have the world just gave me, then I have no individual worth and therefore my input is not even worthwhile, so again, why bother? — Noblosh

You're being purposefully obnoxious.