It is a wide topic, but one of importance. The idea of existential angst is central. I have read Kierkegaard's 'Fear and Trembling', and found it worth reading, but it is probably rather obscure for most present day experiences. In thinking about depression, they frequently involve feeling 'bad' and 'sad', but have become medicalised, so it is worth thinking of the medical model of depression.

There is definitely a physiological aspect to it, especially in relation to neurotransmitters, which is why antidepressant drugs are given. However, a biopsychosocial is useful in considering the way in which experiences in life and social circumstances affect mood.

The understanding of depression also occurred in the context of psychiatry and the development of psychology. Many view psychological therapy as being important, often in conjunction with antidepressants.

Psychoanalytic theory has been important in thinking of depression. This is a vast subject area and one aspect of which Freud may have made a significant contribution is in the inability to moarn. This would include deaths of others, but also, the traumas and 'deaths' of painful experiences. One other area which it may be worth you reading about is Melanie Klein's idea of the depressive position, which involves a sense of guilt. This occurs in the early life experience of perceiving the mother and oneself, but is relevant for all life experiences. The topic of psychoanalytic theory, and its criticism, is so vast.

There is also the cognitive behaviourist approach, which emphasises that it is not experiences in themselves which lead to depression. It is our beliefs about experience which trigger feelings. So, cognitive behaviour therapy involves looking at and questioning beliefs about experiences. In some ways, CBT is a philosophy approach to understanding experience and it has parallels with Stoic philosophy.

The whole philosophy of emotions is also relevant. Also, the philosophy of mental states and moods may draw upon multidisciplinary thinking, including both the sciences and the arts. Some critics of the medical model see it as being a limited view to simply prescribe medication to lift one's mood. However, this is also open to criticism as in 'clinical depression' the severity can result in an inability to function, to eat, wash and the presence of suicidal thoughts.

There is a whole spectrum of experience in thinking about what is depression? The word may be used by individuals to describe varying experiences, including the presence of a 'blue' or 'black' mood. It includes unique experiences although it involves a universal sense of misery and potential for a state of despair. There is also the question of what makes life worth living and what is happiness?

First of all, thanks for bringing the psychology approach to this discussion. I completely missed it, although I am aware that it is very important. I went to the psychologist a few times in my life, but the results were not satisfactory. We didn't talk about the philosophy of mind, neither moral nor ethical dilemmas. I guess this is not what psychologists are up to. But I ended up bored in the sessions, and I decided to not come back ever again and try to find out other ways to understand depression. As I said, I think that some authors are worth reading because they explore human behaviour. Nonetheless, this didn't heal my depression, and I still needed antidepressants to feel better with myself.

It is true that Sigmund Freud is an important author to consider in terms of understanding the mind. But I want to go beyond biological matters. My seek is more focused on human behaviour and personal circumstances which lead us to an incomprehensible suffering.

That's why I believe Dostoevsky was very good expressing the sentimental nature of humans.

My seek is more focused on human behaviour and personal circumstances which lead us to an incomprehensible suffering. — javi2541997

I come from the opposite end of the spectrum and I believe that it is childhood and what happens in childhood that moulds the adult. Not that these things are set in stone.

I was brought up on a council estate in Northern England and everything was ordered. My family was two parents. One worked, the other looked after the home and us lot.

Crucially for me, my parents did not put any expectations upon us and we got three meals a day (simple meals but filling)

My world view was one of fun and order and I have taken that throughout my life. I have live an ordinary life but have repeated the pattern. My only child was brought up similarly (with more emphasis on education) but she has repeated the pattern. My wife and child work in Mental health jobs and see the damage done by childhood. It isn't just horrendous stories but just parents being not very good.

Patterns of thought are repeated through life and while I have read plenty of Dostoyevsky etc it all seems over the top and childish. I understand people live in terrible circumstances but the perspectives on life of many of my fellow humans seems bizarre to m but I have a fascination with neuro science (on a very basic level) and I understand my experience is my own and in different circumstance I would have been a different personality. I'm also a fan of the Stoics but cherry pick the bits that are relevant to me.

What is it about yourself you feel bad about? Don't answer if you don't want to.

I think depression is a healthy attitude as long as it remains an attitude. I often believe in some kind of truth of why people feel depressed. It occured to me before my depression lifted that levels of a neurotrophic factor, called, BDNF or boosting levels of it often coincides with a better mood.

I think depression is a healthy attitude as long as it remains an attitude — Shawn

In what context would depression be healthy?

What constitutes depression in this circumstance?

I come from the opposite end of the spectrum and I believe that it is childhood and what happens in childhood that moulds the adult. Not that these things are set in stone. — Malcolm Parry

Good point. This is why I stated that one of the themes where Dostoevsky approaches depression is the suffering of children. I don't know if you read 'The Eternal Houseband', but it is actually a great novel. One of the characters is a child, and she suffers from having an agitated childhood with a dead mother and unknown father. Everything happens here, at this age. It is cruel but realistic at the same time; because some writers only show childhood as if it were a fairy tale. But the reality could be more different.

My wife and child work in Mental health jobs and see the damage done by childhood. It isn't just horrendous stories but just parents being not very good. — Malcolm Parry

Understood. It is not being too bizarre but the absence of parents can make children depressed too.

What is it about yourself you feel bad about? Don't answer if you don't want to. — Malcolm Parry

I feel selfish because I believe that I don't appreciate my life enough. I complained and behaved childishly in many different ways. For example: destiny and circumstances are often the things that make me feel depressed. I always wonder, "Why does this happen to me?" Or "Why did I make this decision?" etc. While I stick the TV on, and I watch a lot of children dying in Gaza or starving in a random village in Africa. Then I say to myself, What do you complain about? Look how thousands and thousands of citizens actually live! And then, reflecting on that makes me a bit depressed because although my life is "better" than theirs, I believe my life is not always satisfactory.

These kind of dilemmas are found in Dostoevsky. Humiliated and Injured comes to my mind.

In what context would depression be healthy? — Malcolm Parry

Well, in the realm of philosophy it is called philosophical pessimism. My hunch is that philosophical pessimism is more attune with how emotive it is with the aspect of depression professes itself. Might sound like a word-salad but I think there's truth to philosophical pessimism.

Well, in the realm of philosophy it is called philosophical pessimism. My hunch is that philosophical pessimism is more attune with how emotive it is with the aspect of depression professes itself. Might sound like a word-salad but I think there's truth to philosophical pessimism. — Shawn

I get that and it is a sound enough (if miserable) concept but I would baulk at describing depression as healthy. I suppose it depends on the term depression as well.

Have you read any stoicism? I've always liked two quotes from Epictetus that Tom Wolfe used in a novel:

"Difficulty shows what men are. Therefore when a difficulty falls upon you, remember that God, like a trainer of wrestlers, has matched you with a rough young man. Why? So that you may become an Olympic conqueror; but it is not accomplished without sweat."

And

"What would have become of Hercules do you think if there had been no lion, hydra, stag or boar - and no savage criminals to rid the world of? What would he have done in the absence of such challenges?

Obviously he would have just rolled over in bed and gone back to sleep. So by snoring his life away in luxury and comfort he never would have developed into the mighty Hercules.

And even if he had, what good would it have done him? What would have been the use of those arms, that physique, and that noble soul, without crises or conditions to stir into him action?"

That helps me sometimes when I'm struggling. Also, ChatGPT is sometimes good to talk to.

Yes, I read some works on Stoicism or by stoic authors. They are not my cup of tea, sorry. It is interesting how they approach life and the circumstances, but I ended up not "buying" their motto. Furthermore, I hardly recall if they apply their views to familiar problems. I believe they belong to the classics, and it is not comparable with modern authors on the same topic.

The example of Hercules is perfect for what I think. I don't want to become a superman. I just want to know whether I should bear all uncomfortable circumstances or not. I don't want to find a way of escaping through luxuries either. When an ethical dilemma pops up, we have to be ready to act. The big issue here is if I really act accordingly. If not, I am at risk of being depressed. This is incomprehensible, but I get why existentialism fits with my way of viewing the world.

I think it would be helpful to first identify what exactly the problem is—in this case, determining which specific type of depression you may be experiencing. According to the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition), depression is not a single, uniform condition but rather a group of related disorders that fall under the category of “Depressive Disorders,” each with its own diagnostic criteria, features, and clinical course. Given the condition you described, perhaps (with apologies, and please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) two specific disorders might be relevant: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Persistent Depressive Disorder (Dysthymia). They differ in terms of severity and duration. Severity can be formally assessed using the following criteria:

• Depressed mood daily
• Loss of interest in almost all activities daily (anhedonia)
• Significant loss/gain of weight (Δ of 5% in a month), or decreased/increased appetite
• Insomnia/hypersomnia daily
• Psychomotor agitation or retardation almost daily
• Fatigue or loss of energy
• Feeling of worthless, inappropriate and low self-esteem
• lack of concentration and indecisiveness
• Diminished cognitive abilities
• Recurrent thought of death or suicide

For MDD, the first two symptoms must be satisfied, followed at least by three additional symptoms from the list, lasting at least for two weeks.

Dysthymia is the presence of two or more of the symptoms and characterized by a depressed mood for at least 2 years (1 year for children or adolescents).

The next step, then, is to identify the contributing factors, which I believe is your main interest here. From a psychiatric perspective, all factors can be classified into the following five categories:

• Genetic
• Neurobiological
• Social/Environment
• Personality traits
• Cognitive

Genetic factors include a family history of depression, with heritability estimated at approximately 30–40%.

There's no need to elaborate on the neurobiological aspects here, as they mostly concern biological mechanisms.

Social and environmental factors encompass the influence of one’s surroundings, such as adverse childhood experiences, chronic stress (e.g., from work), and low socioeconomic status. Personal history—such as a specific traumatic or tragic event—also plays a role.

Personality traits, particularly high neuroticism (a dimension of the Big Five model), are associated with a higher risk of depression.

Cognitive factors generally involve maladaptive thinking patterns that consistently interpret life experiences through a negative lens.

Each of these categories corresponds to potential healing strategies. For example, if depression arises from social factors, then expanding one's social network can be highly beneficial. In my view, these categories are deeply interconnected, so the most effective approach is to address all of them—perhaps with the exception of genetic factors, which are largely beyond one’s control.

Given your interest in the philosophical perspective on depression, particularly through existentialist novels and doctrines, this can be seen as an exploration of the cognitive aspect. If one adopts the view that human existence is inherently marked by suffering and internalizes this belief, then the onset of depression seems almost inevitable. While there may be a grain of truth in Dostoevsky’s recurring themes of human misery, I think it is misguided to focus exclusively on this aspect. One could just as easily find numerous counterexamples. What often appears to be timeless human suffering is, in many cases, the result of specific historical and political conditions.

While I stick the TV on, and I watch a lot of children dying in Gaza or starving in a random village in Africa. — javi2541997

You also mentioned the topic of fairness—such as the plight of children affected by recent global conflicts. But contrary to popular belief, I would argue that nihilism offers a better cognitive framework than sheer pessimism, both in terms of psychological effects and logical coherence. In fact, nihilism serves as the starting point for many existentialist thinkers. Sartre, for instance, saw the inherent meaninglessness of the world as the foundation for human freedom and agency. Camus, on the other hand, insisted that the beauty and essence of life lie in the absurd revolt—our rational craving for meaning set against the irrational silence of the universe.

destiny and circumstances are often the things that make me feel depressed. I always wonder, "Why does this happen to me?" Or "Why did I make this decision?" etc. — javi2541997

So, questions of this sort are resolved by deeming them senseless. I mean, it's essentially an attempt to find an objective (in the sense of mind-independent) answer to a subjective (mind-dependent) question.

Of course a common response to the premise of nihilism is "why don't you just kill yourself". So it is worth noting that nihilism is the mere assertion of a lack of inherent value in a mind independent universe. One still could affirm or exercise personal beliefs, whether they stem from cognitive (i.e. intellectual pursue) or biological (i.e. happiness) grounds.

In any case, I wish you strength and improvement in your journey.

Hey, good post. You are right that is important to first identify what exactly the problem is.

Insomnia/hypersomnia daily.
Feeling of worthless, inappropriate and low self-esteem.
Recurrent thought of death or suicide — Showmee

Those three patterns are the main ones. I believe that suicidal thoughts and insomnia have been by my side for a long time. Before starting to read Dostoevsky, I remember that Mishima was also an important author to understand and approach the concept of death. Specifically speaking, it is worth quoting his following quote: "The Japanese have always been a people with a severe awareness of death. But the Japanese concept of death is pure and clear, and in that sense it is different from death as something disgusting and terrible as it is perceived by Westerners."

But I failed trying to embrace the Japanese way of life and death. I can't see 'heroic' or 'pure' ways to live, so I can't see death in the same way. Furthermore, I believe that dying can be the solution to many problems caused by my circumstances. But, reflecting on it deeply, I still believe that this thought is selfish. For this reason, Western existentialism and Dostoevsky's literature helped me to understand that life is a continuous struggle, that familiar problems exist and children die. I can't do anything but face it and accept that life is the way it is represented in The Brothers Karamazov or Stepanchikovo.

Social and environmental factors encompass the influence of one’s surroundings, such as adverse childhood experiences, chronic stress (e.g., from work), and low socioeconomic status. Personal history—such as a specific traumatic or tragic event—also plays a role. — Showmee

Exactly. But this makes me wonder: who the hell has never experienced tragic experiences or traumatic events?

Dostoevsky’s recurring themes of human misery, I think it is misguided to focus exclusively on this aspect. One could just as easily find numerous counterexamples. What often appears to be timeless human suffering is, in many cases, the result of specific historical and political conditions. — Showmee

I can't disagree with that point, but I think it is important to emphasise that Dostoevsky went beyond political factors. The human condition tends to be miserable. Wishing the death of a father (The Brothers Karamazov) or stealing your daughter's money because you are a gambler. People do this, and after that, the following can happen: regretting or not caring. I go for the first option, and I explain to you why: for unknown reasons, people tend to act viciously, and when they understand the moral consequences of their acts, it is too late. Now that the problem has happened, what can we do? If I wasn't ethical in the first place, why am I suffering from my consequences now?

Sartre, for instance, saw the inherent meaninglessness of the world as the foundation for human freedom and agency. Camus, on the other hand, insisted that the beauty and essence of life lie in the absurd revolt—our rational craving for meaning set against the irrational silence of the universe. — Showmee

Yes, but I believe that French existentialist writers are a bit naive in their views. I can't say that children dying in Gaza or starving in a random cold oblast is inherent meaninglessness for the sake of freedom. It might help me to find freedom for myself. But, again, what still happens to those children? The point here is that, according to the way I see things, it would be selfish to act pretending that human misery is meaninglessness. At least, it is a cause to make me feel depressed.

In any case, I wish you strength and improvement in your journey. — Showmee

Thanks. It was a productive and interesting exchange. Sorry if my grammar and expressions are not very accurate. I am not a native speaker.

Two things: first the diagnosis of depression is separate from the emotion of sadness and therefore the OP is akin to asking about the philosophical perspectives on diabetes.

Two things: first the diagnosis of depression is separate from the emotion of sadness and therefore the OP is akin to asking about the philosophical perspectives on diabetes. — LuckyR

Yes, but the diagnosis of depression gets its sense form a set of grounding psychological hyptheses, and one can then delve into the philosophical underpinnings of the psychological theory.

What is the definition of "meaning" for you? When I use it in the context of "the meaning of suffering" or "the meaninglessness of the universe", I am referring to a conscious-independent purpose or value.

it would be selfish to act pretending that human misery is meaninglessness — javi2541997

So when you say this, are you affirming that there is a mind-independent purpose or design that underline those atrocities?

From my perspective, things just happen. If one truly wants to make an objective assertion, then it must be descriptive in nature, not prescriptive or teleological. Of course, it is perfectly human to attach emotions to the things we see and hear, but to ask what the "fundamental" meaning of these things is in the aforementioned sense, I suppose, is meaningless (in a semantic sense). Asking why children suffer from war is the same as asking, say, why it is raining or not raining right now—if by "why" you are not referring to a physical or psychological process or causation, but rather to a metaphysical purpose.

Wishing the death of a father (The Brothers Karamazov) or stealing your daughter's money because you are a gambler. People do this, and after that, the following can happen: regretting or not caring. I go for the first option, and I explain to you why: for unknown reasons, people tend to act viciously, and when they understand the moral consequences of their acts, it is too late. Now that the problem has happened, what can we do? If I wasn't ethical in the first place, why am I suffering from my consequences now? — javi2541997

So here, I would say the first question—"Now that the problem has happened, what can we do?"—is a sensical one, as it seeks a response within the same dimension of the issue, namely, practicality. However, the second question—"If I wasn’t ethical in the first place, why am I suffering from the consequences now?"—can only be answered if one accepts the existence of "meaning" in a metaphysical sense. Moreover, the answer would vary depending on one’s metaphysical stance.

I used to have a fair amount of confidence in the efficacy of good advice, therapeutic routines, positive thinking, and all sorts of other nostrums (meaning "a favorite remedy, especially one for bringing about some social goal). Some of them, like regular exercise, healthy nutrition, and good sleep seem pretty valid.

The problem with mental illness is that the mind that is supposed to make use of good advice doesn't feel well and can't just step out of itself. That fact makes overcoming depression, anxiety, obsessiveness, and so on difficult. What the somewhat-to-moderately depressed person does is figure out how to manage under the circumstances. The severely depressed person can't manage, and is disabled.

You sound like a fairly up-beat positively minded person. True enough, you have some problems, but you seem to be dealing with them reasonably effectively. It would be nice if life were perfect, but unfortunately, it isn't.

Keep reading and thinking; stay engaged with other people. I don't know what will happen, but you will probably be OK. Most people end up being OK. Of course, some don't. Some people bring trouble on to themselves, but for most people trouble comes by way of random events like a flash flood, a violent storm, a war, and so on.

Here's some psychotherapy by the eminent Bing Crosby.

What is the definition of "meaning" for you? When I use it in the context of "the meaning of suffering" or "the meaninglessness of the universe", I am referring to a conscious-independent purpose or value. — Showmee

I am referring to value. I don’t think a purpose is suitable here, but it is true that some acts and decisions are often taken because of a purpose. This is true. But I want to go a bit further: let’s say that acting accordingly has good consequences, while being a person with malicious thoughts can make you struggle. This is very basic, but it is where we should start. Now, if I thought that exceeding some limits was actually plausible to get some results, why do I end up regretting it? This is shown in ‘Crime and Punishment,’ but with the writing talent of Dostoevsky.

but to ask what the "fundamental" meaning of these things is in the aforementioned sense, I suppose, is meaningless (in a semantic sense). Asking why children suffer from war is the same as asking, say, why it is raining or not raining right now—if by "why" you are not referring to a physical or psychological process or causation, but rather to a metaphysical purpose. — Showmee

I am referring to a metaphysical purpose.


The question is not whether it is pouring or not. The question is not why children die. Everything goes beyond all of that. I don’t understand how Cosmos works, and I don’t really believe in God. But, for reasons that I would like to know, I am sitting here talking with you on a forum while a child is starving in the Gaza Strip. Why does this happen to the child and not me? I think it is a serious thing to approach. On this matter, I am not very fond of defending predeterminism. I can’t buy that some suffer and live miserable lives while others have fun just because the dice were thrown to the air and the numbers decided the will of different children. For this reason, I think it is a good exercise to do an act of empathy with them [the people who suffer]. But exactly here is when the paths crossed. If they suffer because they were born in a place where you can’t live (objective suffering) and I suffer because I realise what the human condition is (subjective suffering), then people tend to face dramatic situations rather than happy ones. Accepting that this is the case, I believe it is plausible to wonder why children die rather than why it is raining. The first is a pattern intrinsically human; the second is just trifling.

Moreover, the answer would vary depending on one’s metaphysical stance. — Showmee

Yes, I agree.

My seek is more focused on human behaviour and personal circumstances which lead us to an incomprehensible suffering. — javi2541997

The focus on human behaviour, and personal circumstances, is good. But why the focus on those which lead to incomprehensible suffering rather those which lead eudaimonia, pleasure and joy? These are the two very different sides of human behaviour.

You might enjoy reading some of Plato's dialogues. He was very well educated in human feelings and behaviours, and wrote about these in a style which is quite entertaining. A couple dialogues which I particularly enjoy, that deal with human relations which are pleasurable interactions, are "The Symposium" (love), and "Lysis" (friendship). After you get a feel for his writing style, you might be inclined to move on to more sophisticated dialogues, such as Gorgias, and Protagoras, where he inquires about the meaning of terms like pleasure, pain, good, and bad in general.

I can’t buy that some suffer and live miserable lives while others have fun just because the dice were thrown to the air and the numbers decided the will of different children. For this reason, I think it is a good exercise to do an act of empathy with them [the people who suffer]. But exactly here is when the paths crossed. If they suffer because they were born in a place where you can’t live (objective suffering) and I suffer because I realise what the human condition is (subjective suffering), then people tend to face dramatic situations rather than happy ones. Accepting that this is the case, I believe it is plausible to wonder why children die rather than why it is raining. The first is a pattern intrinsically human; the second is just trifling. — javi2541997

I think your conclusion here isn't sound. You empathize with people suffering, but not with people who are happy. Why does the one type of person deserve empathy more than the other? And, it is only by choosing this one type to empathize with, that you reach the conclusion that people tend to face dramatic situations rather than happy ones.

Why will you not empathize with people who are happy? Would this make you feel bad (jealous perhaps), because these people are better off than you, truly happy, and you would only be feeling that happiness through empathy? To see others happy, when I am not happy, seems to emphasize my unhappiness, so I direct my attention toward the miserable. Misery loves company. Would empathizing with those who are suffering somehow make you feel good, because they are worse off than you, truly suffering while you only feel that suffering through empathy? If this is the case, then this is not true empathy. True empathy allows you to feel what the other feels. Therefore you ought to see no reason not to empathize with those who are happy. Why not share in that joy?

I think your conclusion here isn't sound. You empathize with people suffering, but not with people who are happy. Why does the one type of person deserve empathy more than the other? And, it is only by choosing this one type to empathize with, that you reach the conclusion that people tend to face dramatic situations rather than happy ones.

Why will you not empathize with people who are happy? Would this make you feel bad (jealous perhaps), because these people are better off than you, truly happy, and you would only be feeling that happiness through empathy? To see others happy, when I am not happy, seems to emphasize my unhappiness, so I direct my attention toward the miserable. Misery loves company. Would empathizing with those who are suffering somehow make you feel good, because they are worse off than you, truly suffering while you only feel that suffering through empathy? If this is the case, then this is not true empathy. True empathy allows you to feel what the other feels. Therefore you ought to see no reason not to empathize with those who are happy. Why not share in that joy? — Metaphysician Undercover

I see your point.

But let me explain that it is quite difficult to have motivation for (let's say) participating in the joy and happiness of others. I don't think this is a matter of envy or jealousy. It is just that a person under the spectrum of pessimism is hard to find joy beyond the way he sees the world. I believe we should take your point the other way around. Don't you believe that happy people should be the ones who have to empathise with the rest? We are talking about putting some kind of responsibility on someone's shoulders. For this reason, I hardly see that a depressed person must embrace the happiness of others. Keep in mind that seeing the world in such a way is just a different perspective. I don't want to have anything against it. But I would not say it is better to wonder and be concerned about the misery of the world. It seems that according to some, the world is also full of beautiful things. Thus, they see the glass half full. But it is important to understand that others can't bear how incomprehensible life actually is. For one reason or another, there are always more reasons to be sad than happy.

Yes, but the diagnosis of depression gets its sense form a set of grounding psychological hyptheses, and one can then delve into the philosophical underpinnings of the psychological theory

True. Though psychological theory is not limited to the specific diagnosis of depression, which the OP clearly wants to focus upon. Hence my comment addressing depression (not psychological theory).

I was gloomy and somewhat of a morose pessimist from the age of 16 to around 25. I think it lifted when I started to work to help others. I suspect it can be pretty detrimental to focus on one’s own preoccupations for too much time. Introspection and dwelling on your personal life, while often encouraged by culture, can end up as a black hole of self-indulgence. On the other hand true depression is a serious and debilitating illness and probably requires treatment and the right support.

I think you misunderstood me. I don't want to find out a diagnosis of depression, but what are the philosophical inputs on this matter. As well as philosophers debating about the origin of the ideas (for example), why not get a philosophical approach to depression?

On the other hand true depression is a serious and debilitating illness and probably requires treatment and the right support. — Tom Storm

Can that treatment be found in philosophical writings or literature? Is there a possibility to understand depression at all? Because I feel that depression is very connected to existentialism and the suffering of why life is often incomprehensible. This is the way I see it, but I can be perfectly wrong.

Can that treatment be found in philosophical writings or literature? — javi2541997

Personally I don't often go to books for anything important. But that's me.

Well, no one knows the exact mechanism of Clinical Depression (what I understand you're talking about). But clearly brain neurotransmitter levels play a significant role. However, my guess is you're not referring to the "philosophical perspectives" on serotonin levels. OTOH, essentially everyone has experience with intense sadness and grief (as opposed to the 8-9% who battle Clinical Depression), which are a direct response to life experiences. Philosophy seems to have more to say about these universal entities.

The tradition Dostoevsky comes out of recognizes acedia (despondency) and tristitia (sorrow) as part of the Eight (Seven in the West) Deadly Sins/Thoughts. This first comes up in the writing of Evagrius Ponticus, and makes it to the West through John Cassian. In the West, they get combined into sloth, but the modern usage of sloth is quite far from these in being primarily "laziness" and not necessarily a lack of hope and sadness. A lack of proper hope is considered a vice of the irascible appetites (hope and fear), while sadness has more to do with the concupiscible appetites (pleasure and pain).

You can find a lot of stuff written about this.

You can find a lot of stuff written about this. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting! Thank you for telling me.

I believe it is an appropriate parable to argue that a lack of proper hope is regarded a vice.

Nice point... I will attempt to read all of that written stuff.

I do not know whether these thoughts will help you, but they helped me.

I think despair is when a person realizes that he can't have something that he thinks he needs. Most people think despair is a pit that they need to climb out of. But if you are willing to let go of that thing that you want that you can't have, then despair becomes a tunnel.

You said that you are unable to understand your feelings. I came up with a psychological model years ago that helps me to understand my feelings. (Value) + (Perceived Event) --> (Emotion). For instance, anger is what you feel when you think someone is attacking something you care about. Sadness is the loss of something good. Happiness is the acquisition of something good. Relief is the loss of something bad. Contentedness is the possession of sufficiently good things.

Like in algebra, if you can identify two out of the three things in this equation, then you can figure out the third. You can actively guide your emotions by thinking about what values you ought to have (values are those things which you consider to be good or bad).

It is possible to have a consistent philosophy of life which thinks that existence as a whole is good. If you think that everything that positively exists is good, then bad is only the loss of good things. For instance, if the life of a man is good, then murder is bad because it takes away from the life of a man. If you think that the worst thing that could possibly happen is that everybody dies, or that the laws of physics break and the universe just quits existing, then clearly, it's not possible to have a world that is net evil, because nothingness seems to be morally neutral. The only thing I can think of that would be worse than nothing would be if God were malicious and created immortal souls only for the purpose of torturing them forever, and if God hated himself but was unable to commit suicide. But I don't think there's evidence for that.

So, if you accustom yourself to thinking that nothingness and death is the norm, then you will be able to see the positive good in what exists.

Interesting input, thanks. Every reply to this thread is welcome. So, yes, your post helps me.

On the other hand, I believe I would only be able to put into practice your thoughts if I were capable of discerning what is important. Yesterday, I learnt something important. What is necessarily important to me and should concern me is not so for others. Children suffering is a good example of this. You say that 'sadness is the loss of something good.' But those infants didn't have the chance to have something good and then lose it.

Furthermore, I still don't see why nothingness should be taken into account regarding the moral uncertainty I am referring to. It does affect me, and it influences me to take one decision or another. Even death has a meaning, in my opinion. I take nihilistic arguments as important, and I respect them, but there is something that doesn't convince me, actually.

For the reasons I expressed above, I wanted to know if thinking that suffering is intrinsically human is actually extreme. Probably, depression and other negative moods lead me to think that way. I can't disagree with that. Nonetheless, I came to the point that people necessarily suffer. It is difficult to focus on the positive sides of life because pain is always present.

On the other hand true depression is a serious and debilitating illness and probably requires treatment and the right support.
— Tom Storm

Can that treatment be found in philosophical writings or literature? Is there a possibility to understand depression at all? Because I feel that depression is very connected to existentialism and the suffering of why life is often incomprehensible — javi2541997

Others here have mentioned CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) and its relation to stoicism). I want to point out the commonalities with phenomenology. For instance, Matthew Ratcliffe has written extensively about depression from a vantage that draws from Sartre, Husserl and Heidegger as well as embodied cognitive theory. Ratcliffe discusses the personal accounts of depression of such writers as Sylvia Plath and William Styron. What he concluded from these accounts is that depression is not just about feelings of despair but the loss of the ability ton discern salience and relevance in the world.

The metaphor of imprisonment is often used to describe depression, and it is easy to see why. The sufferer is irrevocably isolated from others, cut off from all sense of practical significance, and faces a future that takes the form of an all-enveloping threat before which she is powerless. World experience as a whole is akin to a form of incarceration. One of the most famous state-ments of this appears in Sylvia Plath's semi-autobiographical novel The Bell Jar:

“wherever I sat – on the deck of a ship or at a street café in Paris or Bangkok – I would be sitting under the same glass bell jar, stewing in my own sour air” (1966, p.178). Solomon (2001, p.66), recalling Plath, describes the experience as like being “encaged in Lucite, like one of those butterflies trapped forever in the thick transparency of a paperweight”, and Styron (2001, p.49) compares it to “the diabolical discomfort of being imprisoned in a fiercely over-heated room”. The theme of being enclosed crops up in nearly every report; the sufferer is trapped behind a wall or a sheet of unbreakable glass, stuck in a hole, or wrapped up in some material (Rowe, 1978, p.30). This enclosure is always oppressive, like drowning, suffocation or inescapa-ble darkness (Karp, 1996, p.28). The recurrent themes of imprisonment, darkness and being trapped do not convey a loss of physical space but instead, I suggest, of possibility space.

Our experiences ordinarily include a sense that things could be otherwise in signi-ficant ways. Hence they also incorporate a sense of their own contingency, an appreciation that one's current view on the world does not encompass all that the world has to offer. In depression, there is a loss of the possibilities that would have allowed the sufferer to appreciate the contingency of her predica-ment. There is no sense that things could be otherwise in any consequential way. Hence the depression itself is no longer experienced as a transitory state, a way of feeling, but as something from with recovery is impossible, a way of being from which there is no escape. This also amounts to a change in the experience of time. Without any practical orientation towards salient future possibilities, the dynamic between past, present and future that people gener-ally take for granted is replaced by a predicament that seems eternal.

One of the pioneers of this approach was psychologist George Kelly, who characterized depression as the loss of a sense of coherent belonging with respect to others. In order to maintain a healthy core sense of self as competent and connected with others, one must rely on effective and reliable ways of constructing bonds of trust and understanding between oneself and others. When that compass ceases to be effective at insuring such belonging, events lose what gives them their overarching coherence , salience and significance, and we drift though a fog of meaninglessness until we can reconstruct a new compass on the basis of which we can relate intimately with others.