If I understand you correctly then, what we call "mental illness" is an inability to adapt to one's changing social environment. Depending on the individual, a different sort of social environment might trigger the mental illness. Would you say that if given the necessary social environment, every one of us would suffer mental illness? There is no one who can adapt to every possible social environment? — Metaphysician Undercover
You're confusing asocial behavior with anti-social behavior.Not at all. An anti-social person is ideally suited to being a night-watchman or a lighthouse keeper, or a mountain shepherd. No reason at all to call such people ill. — unenlightened
What I mean is the definition of antisocial. Here, let me help you:Or do you mean by 'antisocial' one who opposes the society they are in, in some way? Such people are agents of change and progress. — unenlightened
How does an agent of change and progress get others to agree with them and follow them if they are hostile to everyone they interact with? — Harry Hindu
Are these mental illnesses? — unenlightened
In regards to the topic, I think everyone would agree that having a bipolar or schizophrenic or depressed, on medication for those conditions rather than not.
That would be their purpose, to treat those conditions*.
*I purposely refuse to use the term disorder. — Question
So, what I mean to say is that the epistemological quantifier of mental illnesses is derived from the results one obtains from the drug treatment for the condition. It's not an exact science; but, if someone complains about being sad all the time, then putting them on SSRI's or other drugs that treat depression is what one has to do to become less depressed. If the drug works, then we have knowledge that either the drug was effective for the condition described or the placebo effect had an equal but not greater effect. — Question
You still don't seem to understand the very terms you are using. Being a lighthouse keeper still requires you to be sociable to the captains and sailors out off the coast. An anti-social lightkeeper would turn the light out just to see a ship full of people crash on the rocks. You keep referring to an asocial lighthouse keeper.So if you are 1. averse to the company of others, be a lighthouse keeper, and if you are 2. hostile to society, be a revolutionary.
How does an agent of change and progress get others to agree with them and follow them if they are hostile to everyone they interact with? — Harry Hindu
Smack them briskly about the head until they comply. Or possibly crucify a few of them to encourage the others. Are these mental illnesses? — unenlightened
If someone possesses a trait that, if all members of the species possessed would mean the demise of the species - like being hostile to other members, then that would be sufficient to call that trait an illness. — Harry Hindu
Uhh... yeah. If everyone was a "full-time" writer or metal-worker - meaning that is all they did, 24-7, and never possessed an inclination to eat or procreate, then I would say that they are ill, sure. Do you know anyone like this? I doubt it. So you examples are preposterous.That is completely ridiculous. If everyone was a full time writer, or a woman, or for that matter, a metal worker, the species would die out. But these are not illnesses.
If all the bees were queens, the species would die out, and if all the bees were workers, the species would die out, and if all the bees were drones, the species would die out. Therefore all bees are ill. — unenlightened
You seem to just like to be obtuse for the sake of it.You seem to just like to be contrarian for the sake of it. — unenlightened
Shouldn't the way people use words be logical? Aren't I pointing to the illogical ways people are using words? From my perspective, it is those people that are using words improperly, or conflating words like "asocial" and "antisocial", that aren't participating intelligently in this discussion.You're hovering near a stoic viewpoint. Note that you don't actually have to provide anything logically satisfying.
Just point to the way people use the words and drop the mike.
True it now becomes impossible to have an intelligent discussion about the concepts on the table... but look at your interlocutor objectively. Was there ever any chance of an intelligent discussion? If not then you have lost nothing. — Mongrel
It seems to be that the way psychologists and psychiatrists diagnose mental illness is through conversation with the patient. The patient tells them what bothers them, what they feel, their thoughts, etc. So, if you have lost enjoyment in life, and experience constant sadness, you are diagnosed with depression (based on the things that you said to the mental health professional.) The way in which we diagnose depression seems to be way less reliable than the way that for example you would find a tumor on someones body, or a life weakening viral infection. The latter seems to have more epistemological validity than the former. What are your thoughts on this? And given this problem, can psychology really be called a science? — rickyk95
It doesn't take a psychiatrist or a rocket scientist to tell me or anyone else that a lot of people out there are seriously mentally screwed up... — Heister Eggcart
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.