What is evidence of an "illness" (as opposed to a natural reaction) is experiencing depressive symptoms in the absence of any significant negative experiences. — LuckyR

I agree. But I think I shared a lot of negative experiences along this thread. Seriously, don't you feel sad when a child is abused or when a dog is injured? These are very negative experiences. If you want something more precise, look at what some did to @MoK. They stole his intellectual property! The human condition only makes people depressed!

User Survey: On a scale of 1 - 10, with "1" being fabulous advice and "10" being a pile of shit, how would you rate this post in terms of helpfulness? — BC

:rofl:

Your posts are always fabulous!

Points and advice taken. But I don't think stoicism would help me, friend... I tried it, and there is something that doesn't fit with my mood or personality. I would like to stick with the Russian and Eastern European authors. They are helping me to open the eyes and understand the human condition. I don't want to overcome it but just to learn to live with this situation.

Russian and Eastern European authors ... are helping me to open the eyes and understand the human condition. I don't want to overcome it but just to learn to live with this situation. — javi2541997

That's very wise.

The human condition only makes people depressed!

Exactly. The numerous negative events that can and do occur contribute to great feelings of sadness and grief. While some can deal with these events and avoid these sad feelings, that is atypical and many and likely most will experience them. That's a normal reaction and while this normal reaction can be addressed philosophically, for example by focusing on it's normality, to great benefit, having clinical depression in the absence of negative events probably will reap fewer philosophical insights.

It seems there are plenty on this website who mope, and do not understand what this is. Justifications abound, but actions to address one's situation seem lacking.

I wonder why that is.....

But we the humans also have a soul, and we suffer from what we experience. — javi2541997

As I explained, when others behave badly, you have no obligation to share in their badness. You ought not let them impart their suffering to you, and your moral responsibility is to share your goodness with them. In Christian tradition this is known as forgiving.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/forgiveness/art-20047692
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/eight_keys_to_forgiveness

Notice in #4 of the second link, that true empathy is derived from sharing your love with the other, forgiveness. This act of giving your goodness to the other, giving your understanding, is the basis of empathy, not a sharing in the other's badness. It is a matter of understanding the other, such that the other feels your goodness, not a matter of feeling the other's badness. This is why true empathy cannot exist through the medium of narrative. Through narrative, the other has no access to your understanding, you merely have access to the suffering of the other.

Good point.

I think you are trying to make me see that perhaps forgiveness is a good idea to cure my soul. I will not say that is a bad idea. Au contraire, it is a great practice. But, following the examples I shared previously, it will be hard to forgive. You keep thinking that the characters and situations that make me suffer are just narrative. Well, imagine a real alcoholic abusive father. It is not hard too. Unfortunately and sadly, there are hundreds and hundreds of these kinds of monsters. Who is the one who has to forgive here?

It would be perfectly possible that the son or daughter ends up forgiving his/her parents. Nonetheless, the childhood has already been taken away, and they are probably traumatised for many reasons. Forgiveness is an interesting act, and Dostoevsky also explored this point because he was influenced by Orthodox Christianity. I learnt something important from his writings, and that is that forgiveness is not ultimate nor absolute. We have the risk of passing through serious dilemmas when we are doubting whether forgiveness is the right thing to do or not. Furthermore, this only applies to specific cases that we are close to. I can't 'forgive' an abstract abusive father. I know these exist, but it is true that I don't have direct contact with them. I am affected because of the suffering of others who are experiencing that. This is the main issue. I want to be part of their struggle, and I am comfortable with this for the moment.

Oh, sure. No one which suffers with mental issues would disagree with that, I think. That's rather the point of talking about it. — Moliere

Peace on you!

I suppose it's because we humans are more beasts than angels – human, all too human. Besides, the player never "deserves" the hand s/he's dealt ... — 180 Proof

I think we haven't evolved well enough.

Your experience is a perfect example of what I argued on this thread. Your intellectual property was stolen by another person, and it was published with his name instead of yours. You could hire a lawyer and send him a lawsuit. But we the humans also have a soul, and we suffer from what we experience. It is not "Bah. Nothing really matters. Time would help me to overcome this and bla bla." — javi2541997

I recovered from the depression, and now I am at peace! Forgiving is forgetting!

The human condition is miserable and horrible. In most cases, it is only showing the worst part of all of us. Now, you can't say to me to only focus on the nice aspects of life or contemplate a gorgeous garden. I was talking about children suffering, but you also brought another good example. People are greedy. They steal things from others. Didn't you ever ask yourself why that happened in the first place? If I were you, I would have lost confidence in people. — javi2541997

We have not evolved well enough. I think humans will be alright in the future.

I don't think a psychiatrist can help us in that way. Do you know why? Because the malice of some folks is incomprehensible. And what do you expect to do? To go to a doctor with the aim of convincing me to better focus on the beautiful side of life and leave behind the negative aspects? Sure, I can go to a garden and contemplate the gorgeous flowers, but your intellectual property was stolen, and a child is suffering abuse somewhere. — javi2541997

Correct! In my case, rTMS didn't help. ECT made my depression the worst! I did it all by myself. And I recovered. I hope that you find peace!

"In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him" - Ender Wiggin, Ender's Game(Orson Scott Card)

Enemy could simply be the person doing the wrong, not your enemy.

Very correct!

Sorry you are going through depression, mate! I've been there. It sucks.

In order to have a philosophical perspective on depression, you first need a philosophical perspective on emotion. What are they? My take: emotions are how the unconscious brain communicates with the conscious brain. What is the unconscious brain? Just the vast majority of the brain whose workings we are unaware of, including everything that is instinctual. The conscious brain ultimately decides what to do, taking all inputs into consideration, including all emotional inputs from the unconscious brain.

Usually, what the emotions "mean" is clear by context. Snake, danger! She's hot, I like her. That guy creeps me out. I'm so worried about my kid's future. But, not always. Why? The unconscious brain is not linguistic, it cannot communicate concepts, only feelings. Words, concepts, ideas, that is all conscious stuff. And so, sometimes you are left perplexed about where emotions come from. If this was not the case, therapy would not be a profession.

Compare depression with some of the other negative emotions:

Frustration: This is useless, I'm pissed! (escalate or abandon inefficacious action)
Boredom: I want to do something else! (abandoning fruitless activity/inactivity)
Anger: I've been wronged, I need to do something! (restoring social equilibrium)
Anxiety: I'm so worried, I need to do something! (avoiding future negative events)
Fear: Run! (reacting urgently to a present danger)
Hopelessness: There's nothing more I can do (abandoning futile goal)
Grief: It's gone, I'm so sad. (reconciling with permanent loss)
Depression: I'm... miserable... (???)

The first 5 emotions urge you to take action of some kind. Hopelessness urges the abandonment of futile action. While grief and depression don't seem to demand action at all. One has to ask then, what purpose do these emotions even serve?

Grief, I believe, is about mental and emotional readjustment, about reframing one's goals and one's self of self after suffering an irreversible loss. One cries, one ruminates on mistakes made, on the bleakness and emptiness without the lost someone or something. Then, somehow the psychic wound begins to heal, and we move on.

But with depression, all seems futile, and the emotion itself useless. The depressed can ruminate all day, spend entire days in bed, filled with vague fears and doubts and psychic pain, and they get absolutely nowhere. The emotion seems totally maladaptive, even lethal in the most severe cases.

My theory: depression is a pathological state, composed of some admixture of grief, hopelessness, and anxiety. These emotions, once meaningful, are unresolved, and have become divorced from their original context, so that the patient no longer knows where they come from. Or, if they think they know, they are wrong, more often than not. (If they aren't wrong, then perhaps they aren't truly depressed, but experiencing one of the healthy, contextualized emotions). Negative emotions, instead of stimulating action or healthy readjustment (impossible, since the depressed don't know why they are there), stimulate negative thoughts, which in turn stimulate more negative emotions. It is the worst kind of vicious circle.

I'm going on... does this make any kind of sense?

You keep thinking that the characters and situations that make me suffer are just narrative. Well, imagine a real alcoholic abusive father. It is not hard too. Unfortunately and sadly, there are hundreds and hundreds of these kinds of monsters. Who is the one who has to forgive here? — javi2541997

If the abuse you talk about is in the past, then the narrative is in your own mind. It is how you describe the person's actions to yourself, via memory. You have that medium, your own memories, between you and the actions which are making you suffer. As that medium is your own creation, your own fabrication, you can construct it in two very distinct ways, or two extremes with a multitude of possibilities in between. You can maintain a narrative which has you sharing in that abusive individual's suffering, or you can maintain a narrative which has you sharing your happiness with the abusive individual. Each is fictional, because the past is gone and the suffering or happiness is at the present. Forgiving involves the latter narrative, sharing your present happiness with the abusive individual.

Nonetheless, the childhood has already been taken away, and they are probably traumatised for many reasons. — javi2541997

I really do not understand what is meant by "the childhood has already been taken away". I understand "trauma", but unless this involves unconsciousness, or coma, this is a matter of receiving experience, not a matter of taking anything away.

We have the risk of passing through serious dilemmas when we are doubting whether forgiveness is the right thing to do or not. — javi2541997

Why doubt? It is not a question of whether forgiveness is ultimate or absolute. But it is always the right thing. And, the knowledge you can develop from understanding the other's actions instead of simply suffering from them, will always benefit you in dealing with the person in the future, even if future actions require you to use physical force against the individual.

Furthermore, this only applies to specific cases that we are close to. I can't 'forgive' an abstract abusive father. I know these exist, but it is true that I don't have direct contact with them. I am affected because of the suffering of others who are experiencing that. This is the main issue. I want to be part of their struggle, and I am comfortable with this for the moment. — javi2541997

The problem here is what I'm trying to get you to understand. That is why I used the word "fiction", as a shock tactic, which disconcerted you. You, "want to be part of their struggle", but it is the struggle of an abstract victim of abuse. There is no particular individual whom you are acquainted with, or even unacquainted with, who is suffering that abuse. It is an abstract idea in your mind. Unless you identify a particular individual, whom you can relate to, and be a part of that struggle, the idea that you can be a part of that struggle is a fiction. How can you be a part of the struggle of an abstract abuse victim? Now you are left attempting to do what is impossible, being a part of the struggle of an abstract, fictional, individual. So you are engaged in a hopeless task, which will never be productive, and always be disappointing. But if you choose a particular individual, to be a part of that person's struggle, you will find that the way is to share your love and happiness with that person, not to share in that person's suffering.

Forgiving involves the latter narrative, sharing your present happiness with the abusive individual. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are giving as granted that I or the child who suffered abuse in the past is now happy. What if the person can never be happy? Although I can agree with you that time can cure the scars and help us to move on, I still see it as hard that a person who passed through that kind of experience could be happy nowadays. I accept that he or she can live a normal life, but nothing more. I doubt they can be happy. For this reason, some of them even start taking drugs. We can pick a random drug addict, and probably this person suffered in the past. I know that there are many different examples and each individual is a different case. But it is difficult to be happy to understand those kinds of circumstances.

I really do not understand what is meant by "the childhood has already been taken away". I understand "trauma", but unless this involves unconsciousness, or coma, this is a matter of receiving experience, not a matter of taking anything away. — Metaphysician Undercover

I mean, childhood is a period of life that supposedly makes children happy with their innocence, helps them to learn things, provides good and formidable experiences, etc. It is not the period to "corrupt" and destroy their mental state. A six-year-old child needs to watch cartoons or paint drawings, not hide from his abusive father or learn how to cheat or whatever to defend himself. It is not the appropriate time, mate. Childhood is for different things.

But it is [forgiveness] always the right thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do you think it is always the right thing?

How can you be a part of the struggle of an abstract abuse victim? Now you are left attempting to do what is impossible, being a part of the struggle of an abstract, fictional, individual. So you are engaged in a hopeless task, which will never be productive, and always be disappointing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Because, as I previously explained, I am aware that those situations exist. Probably, I am overreacting a bit; I agree with you on this point. What I am trying to explain is that it is important to care about these situations. It is not about only taking the happy part of life and realising that some cannot even make it. If you think deeply, there are many reasons to give up on happiness, and I can't see if forgiveness can help me at the moment.

Since I was diagnosed with depression, I wanted to get a philosophical approach to why people suffer from this mental state; and on the other hand, if there is another way to get through it apart from medical drugs. — javi2541997

This has been an interesting thread with a whole range of viewpoints, including my personal favorite "Snap out of it." I have been diagnosed with a fairly mild form of bipolar disorder, formerly known as manic-depression disorder, but I am rarely depressed as I normally think about it. It usually manifests as anxiety. I do take drugs, but my advice to those of us who want to really deal with this problem is "Retire." I know @BC will back me up on this. For some reason, many people find this advice unhelpful.

Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that nothing I say is a denial that depression is largely a physical, biological, I guess medical, condition.

Some more or less philosophical thoughts:

I have come to see philosophy as a practice like meditation, yoga, or tai chi. It's goal is to make us more self-aware. I think this is true of all such practices. I also see psychotherapy as a practice. I was a very unhappy teenager and like many of those, I majored in psychology when I first went to school. Many people who study psychology are searching for answers to their own anguish. That's why so many psychotherapists are as damaged as their clients, why so many couples therapists are divorced.

Philosophy, especially western philosophy, is a practice focusing on how our minds work, our intellect, how we think. As such, it attracts smart, intellectual, verbal people. Philosopher's are people who think too much and the mental illness of choice for those of us who think too much is depression. And then when we look for a solution, we turn to words, even though it is words that got us into trouble in the first place. If psychology is where fucked up people turn for answers to their unhappiness, then philosophy is where smart fucked up people turn. As evidence, I suggest you just take a look at many of the posts here on the forum.

I think I came to a more focused interest in philosophy with a prejudice that modern, western philosophy, at least, is more a place to hide from our problems than to face them. Here on the forum, I met many people for whom that is true. What surprised me, though, is that there were a few people who used philosophy as a tool, almost a weapon, to take on their problems head on. The first time I remember thinking about that was in a thread with my friend TimeLine. She had a very difficult childhood but she was so smart and so self-aware that you could almost feel her struggle up out of the hole she started in using the ideas Kant, Hume, and all those guys. I found it very moving, inspiring. I still do, and it changed the way I feel about philosophy. That doesn't mean I don't think that for many of us philosophy is still a place to hide.

I have been diagnosed with a fairly mild form of bipolar disorder, formerly known as manic-depression disorder, but I am rarely depressed as I normally think about it. It usually manifests as anxiety. I do take drugs, but my advice to those of us who want to really deal with this problem is "Retire." I know BC will back me up on this. For some reason, many people find this advice unhelpful. — T Clark

Clarky, first of all, I really appreciate you openly shared that you were diagnosed with bipolar disorder and manic depression. I understand that this is not an easy thing to do. Mental states and illnesses are still a taboo, and some people think that it is better to hide it. When I was diagnosed with depression, I only told it to my parents and Martín (@Arcane Sandwich). Since then, I was also looking for sharing it here, but I didn't know how. I didn't want to turn TPF in my therapy session. But I decided to start a thread this Monday because I thought that depression may have philosophical aspects to discuss. I do use drugs. I need them at the moment since they help me sleep and keep calm.

I have come to see philosophy as a practice like meditation, yoga, or tai chi. It's goal is to make us more self-aware. I think this is true of all such practices. I also see psychotherapy as a practice — T Clark

Yes, they are all practices, and I think each of them can help us in different ways. Yet I have never experienced good results through psychology or psychiatrists. I felt like I was talking like a straw man, and folks didn't even understand me. For this reason, I found help in other areas. I believe philosophy and literature are very good to face depression, but they do not have the "chemical" effects that the drugs do, so it is obvious that we should ask for professional help when it is needed, absolutely.

I think I came to a more focused interest in philosophy with a prejudice that modern, western philosophy, at least, is more a place to hide from our problems than to face them. — T Clark

I understand what you mean. Western philosophy is a difficult take, and when I started this thread, I wasn't aware if this would work at all because mental states are not really part of 'philosophy of mind', and neither is a practice, as you explained. The texts only make us wonder how our minds work, but I think we should go beyond and turn a bit sentimental. I believe that depression is also a spiritual state. I am not religious, but I struggle a lot with ethical and soul crises. I suffer when I see people suffer. Philosophy would only help me in an objective way, almost boring to get up with the issue. But some authors, like Dostoevsky, helped me to understand and see it in a different manner.
I honestly see Dostoevsky's novels as more helpful than Kierkegaard's or Schopenhauer's. I always did my best at understanding them, but they only talk like life was an essay, and it is more complex than that. On the other hand, some works like Crime and Punishment or The Eternal Husband helped me to have a clear approach to how the misery of life works, the evil of some people and the frustration of why some difficulties happen.

The first time I remember thinking about that was in a thread with my friend TimeLine. She had a very difficult childhood but she was so smart and so self-aware that you could almost feel her struggle up out of the hole she started in using the ideas Kant, Hume, and all those guys. I found it very moving, inspiring. I still do, and it changed the way I feel about philosophy. That doesn't mean I don't think that for many of us philosophy is still a place to hide. — T Clark

Interesting! What an excellent example. I was talking with @Metaphysician Undercover about how a damaged youngster would approach life later. It is encouraging to know that she was able to progress thanks to the writings of several great philosophers, such as Hume. I wish she could come back and explain why Hume helped her and what aspects she focused on in his philosophy. An intriguing perspective, and thank you for sharing your personal experience and ideas, Clarky. I am also always here to talk if you need to.

We can be subjected to all manner of physical pain from non-human causes, and yet never develop the depression that results from abuse. Why not? Because at the core of the depression lie unanswered questions concerning why the abuser did what they did. Why did they choose you? Does the fact that they targeted you speak to something broken, unworthy or unlovable in you, that you are to blame for their actions? If they were a family member, how can you trust society in general if you can’t even trust the people closest to you? Because these questions seem so overwhelmingly difficult to answer, there is a risk that we give up trying, and run instead to sources of consolation.

But there are things we know about abuse, such as that they run in families and can be passed down through generations. This tells us that there are patterns of thinking resistant to insights that can break the chain of abuse. One of these patterns involves translating all of one’s unanswered questions into bitter resentment toward the world and the need to punish those closest to one. In its extreme form, this pattern of thinking rationalizes that even someone is my own child, they must be culpable and deserving of rejection.

The best chance of stopping the cycle of dysfunctional relationships and the accompanying self-loathing is, if not to forgive others, then at least to remain open to insights about the perpetrators of abuse that can reduce this self-loathing. Forgiving oneself here is more important than forgiving others. Whether one prefers to achieve these insights in the form of psychology, philosophy or literature, if they do no more than reinforce a sense of victimization, then they will leave you imprisoned in your own anger.

Whether one prefers to achieve these insights in the form of psychology, philosophy or literature, if they do no more than reinforce a sense of victimization, then they will leave you imprisoned in your own anger. — Joshs

I promise I am not angry! It is true that depression is often associated with anger or makes people more susceptible to being angry. But that's not my case. I said that I don't believe that forgiveness is not a solution in some specific cases. It seems that some of you see it as the better solution to move on, but I think it is more difficult than we ever thought. As you very well said, if a family member abuses me, how can I trust society? And, on the other hand, if I can't even forgive my father (for example), how can I forgive strangers? The closest members of our lives are the most important. If they abuse us or destroy our confidence, everything starts breaking into pieces.

As a result, those complex situations lead us to unanswered questions, as you stated. Keep in mind that I don't even blame destiny for choosing "me", but the fact that the abuse actually exists and the people can be miserable and deplorable. Even though there are also beautiful things in life and there are also people who make great things, those people overshadow all.

You are giving as granted that I or the child who suffered abuse in the past is now happy. What if the person can never be happy? Although I can agree with you that time can cure the scars and help us to move on, I still see it as hard that a person who passed through that kind of experience could be happy nowadays. I accept that he or she can live a normal life, but nothing more. I doubt they can be happy. For this reason, some of them even start taking drugs. We can pick a random drug addict, and probably this person suffered in the past. I know that there are many different examples and each individual is a different case. But it is difficult to be happy to understand those kinds of circumstances. — javi2541997

I don't see how any of this is meaningful. I took many drugs, chronically, for many years, perhaps as an escape from abuses in earlier life, and I consider myself to have been happy then, and to be be happy nowadays. Happiness is not an unobtainable ideal, nor does it require strict criteria. In fact, the less that you restrict your criteria, the easier it is to be happy. You can provide for yourself, the freedom required to be happy.

Why do you think it is always the right thing? — javi2541997

I think it is always the right thing, because I understand the benefits, and I was trying to explain them to you. Again, I suggest you read some Plato, the dialogues are very entertaining, and enlightening.

Depression is the psychic equivalent of fever. Fever is a non-specific response to an enormous range of underlying physiological conditions, from the common cold to Ebola... Depression is likewise a *non-specific* response to an enormous range of underlying conditions. It is therefore pointless to talk in the abstract about how to treat "depression" because depression, like fever, is not one thing but many things. It is an effect not a cause.

Effective treatment means understanding and addressing the causes, not just treating the symptom. And those causes, more often than not, are woven into the fabric of a person's life. When that is the case, the long-term solution requires that we examine ourselves, and how we live, and how we function, and how we relate to others and fail to relate. That is legitimate hard work — and that is what psychotherapy is about. Without doing that work, the vulnerability to depression will always remain. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. But for most people most of the time, there are no quick fixes & no magic bullets. For most people most of the time, depression is a message. That message is:

We must change something about ourselves.

Whether one prefers to achieve these insights in the form of psychology, philosophy or literature, if they do no more than reinforce a sense of victimization, then they will leave you imprisoned in your own anger. — Joshs

Nice.

My philosophical point of view on depression: My own thoughts on the topic, it's your subconscious releasing built up emotions suppressed, there's something your past version of your self is asking for.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jul/no-evidence-depression-caused-low-serotonin-levels-finds-comprehensive-review
Interesting, but something I had anticipated based on my prior knowledge of how shoddy the work had been leading to these conclusions.

tl;dr: best evidence through a comprehensive academic review shows nothing to link chemical imbalance with depression.

↪Brendan Golledge 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. — javi2541997

Sorry that I didn't reply for so long. I haven't checked the forum in a while.

If you consider the life of a child to be intrinsically valuable, then the child actually did lose something when it died. If the child is in pain while it dies, that means it is losing its health, health is a good thing. Physical pain is usually associated with loss of health, which you could not lose if you didn't have it in the first place.

I have a young daughter. If she were to die, I would thank God that she existed for at least a little while. I think existing for a short time and then dying is better than never having existed at all.

Values are arbitrarily asserted. So, if you disagree, then I can't argue. I think I can argue that this point of view is logically coherent, however.

Our emotional state is usually in reference to what our expectations are. So, if you want to have the maximally positive emotional state, it is rational to lower your expectations to the minimum. I think a lot of misery in life comes from having high expectations which are not met.

Our emotional state is usually in reference to what our expectations are. So, if you want to have the maximally positive emotional state, it is rational to lower your expectations to the minimum. I think a lot of misery in life comes from having high expectations which are not met. — Brendan Golledge

:up: :up: