Comments

  • Appropriate Emotions
    What I am concerned with here is the whole paradigm of mental states being appropriate or inappropriate etc. — Andrew4Handel

    Doing my best to be charitable to what on the face of it seems a nonsense, I interpret this to mean that one's feelings might not be 'appropriate' to present circumstances, but rather a reawakened response to earlier traumatic experiences. So the veteran with PTSD responds to ambient noise or sudden movements as if he is still on the battlefield; he feels the stress, the aggression, the fear, that was appropriate, when the danger is long passed.

    In this sense, is is quite possible that your anxiety has its appropriate place in your childhood, and when you consider things, you have nothing seriously to worry about now.
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    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?
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    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

    I'm not sure. Some people are more adaptable than others. Even concentration camps can be sanely survived by a few, perhaps. On the other hand, no one survives the end of the world. What I am really saying is that the 'illness' is not confined to the person, but is in the relationship, and very often is more to do with the society than the individual.
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    One of the defining properties of a human being is that they are highly social. If a person is anti-social, in any social environment, that person is defined as mentally unstable in every social environment, even in the social environment of ISIS. — Harry Hindu

    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.

    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.
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    What kind of social environment produces denial (i.e., an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable)? — Galuchat

    Typically, childhood abuse, physical, sexual, or psychological. More generally, a dependent relationship that is simultaneously intolerable and inescapable. Such is my best current understanding, anyway.
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    ↪Mongrel
    Isis.
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    You might conclude that this is the result of a dysfunctional society, casting the blame of causation onto some phantom existent called "society". But why not look at the reality of this, that these are individuals who cannot cope with their environment. Who knows, perhaps if the conditions were right, you or I could join that group, but wouldn't this classify us as mentally ill? Mental illness doesn't have to be something you are born with. — Metaphysician Undercover

    What I conclude is that the whole notion of mental illness is flawed. As you say, anyone can find themselves in an environment they cannot cope with, and the details of what they cannot cope with will vary with the individual. But one becomes dysfunctional in relation to a social environment, and that is what we call 'mental illness'. The same mentality that functions stably in one environment breaks down in another. Whereas another mentality might respond in the opposite way.

    Epidemiologic research has documented that associations between particular features of the urban environment, such as concentrated disadvantage, residential segregation and social norms, contribute to the risk of mental illness. We propose that changes in DNA methylation may be one potential mechanism through which features of the urban environment contribute to psychopathology. Recent advances in animal models and human correlation studies suggest DNA methylation as a promising mechanism that can explain how the environment “gets under the skin.” Aberrant DNA methylation signatures characterize mental disorders in community settings. Emerging evidence of associations between exposure to features of the environment and methylation patterns may lead toward the identification of mechanisms that explain the link between urban environments and mental disorders. Importantly, evidence that epigenetic changes are reversible offers new opportunities for ameliorating the impact of adverse urban environments on human health.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230535/ (to placate the science addicts)

    The fact that these epigenetic changes are reversible seems to suggest that they are more like immunological responses to a toxic environment than illnesses (to stick as close as possible to the medical model). Thus I appear idiotic, self-contradictory and frankly insane, because I am writing in a science and medicine addicted community, where my challenges to the socially established mode of thought are 'unthinkable'.

    Calling it 'mental illness' directs one to look only at one side of the relation. But perhaps sometimes the suicide is simply conforming, manifesting the fact that his environment, that is the community he finds himself in, wishes him dead. Which happens to marginalised folks everywhere. But in wishing himself dead, his mentality is exactly the same as the rest of the community that we call, by definition, sane.
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    ↪Hanover
    Confusing isn't it. Unless, possibly, not all psychology is science.
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    And no, I don't accept the conclusion that psychology has no therapeutic value. — Hanover

    I don't think anyone was offering it.
  • Was Plotinus a Philosopher or a Spiritual Teacher?
    Interesting slide there, from teacher to follower. That distinction seems fairly clear, although no man is an island, but is influenced by the whole culture; but I'm not sure what the difference is between a philosopher and a spiritual person. Care to elucidate it?
  • Truth or Pleasure?
    Can we suppose that I'm self sufficient, live by myself on my own island? — Kenshin

    Then it's about you and the island; you're still not self-sufficient.

    But you have imaginatively killed off your parents, your teachers, the shipwright who enabled you to get to the island and all they people they depended on, and so on. Why?

    The only constant in my life is me... — Kenshin

    Not at all, that is a fantasy. Firstly you yourself are not constant but always growing, learning, developing, decaying, and secondly the only constant is that it is never just you, never has been and never will be.

    But even to the extent that you can isolate yourself from other people, and I recommend that you try it for a short while as an experiment, you will find neither truth nor happiness therein, because existence is relationship - see Castaway for fictional example.
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    The major mental illnesses must have some kind of biological origin, and the many not-major mental illnesses (or not mental illnesses at all) are the result of the condition that Freud (and many others) have identified: "Happiness just isn't in the cards a good share of the time". — Bitter Crank

    I once spent six weeks with a schizophrenic in the full flowering of a manic episode, and without drugs. It is a distressing, baffling, frightening condition for all parties. In no sense am I a mental illness denier. However, to say that it must have a biological origin is to deny strong evidence that there is a significant social environment factor. It is well established, for example, that the the status of immigrant is a significant risk; there are also known genetic risk factors, but there is no identifiable biological cause. The situation is similar to cancers, except there is zero understanding of the (possibly) random factors that decide whether the risk will be realised or not. Not for the want of looking.

    And as you indicate, there are similar but milder versions, hearing voices or seeing hallucinations, for examples, that some people manage to live with and still function in society, with or without medication. The spectrum nature of these things make your distinctions and percentages somewhat arbitrary.

    I am pretty sure that at least 20% of the population are quite unhappy; some of the population are profoundly unhappy. In most cases, there is nothing wrong with their "psychology". Their brains are in working order. They can concentrate, learn, remember, cope, produce, get up every day and go to work, get their laundry washed, and so on. If they are unhappy, they need to change -- their job, their family, their society, themselves, or all of the above. If they can't change, then they are going to stay unhappy, or they'll make some kind of accommodation. They don't need therapy--they need courage. — Bitter Crank

    But lack of courage is a failing of the psyche. What the above illustrates is that the only measure we have of mental health is a social functional one. A few million men go off to shoot each other in trenches, and we think them sane, but if one runs down the street wielding an axe, we think him mad.

    I think the talk of a "brain state" is somewhat misleading. "State" implies static, but the brain is continuously active. Ideas, beliefs, and concepts can be understood as static things, but I think it is a mistake to try to understand the brain in terms of states. — Metaphysician Undercover

    I agree. It is just a shorthand for talking about the kind of global factors of neurotransmitter levels and such, that seem to be the rough physical analogues of 'moods'. I don't think brain talk in general is very illuminating, but one has to engage with it when conversing with physicalists.
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    Depression does have a specific definition (it's a collection of moods and behavior changes), — Bitter Crank

    The diagnosis of physical maladies often begins with self-reports. — Bitter Crank

    This is a rather important difference. In the case of physical maladies, the self report and other behaviour is explained in terms of bugs, wounds, inflammation, genes, or whatever. Absent such identifiable physical causal factors, there is a strong tendency to reach - as a last resort, for the 'psychosomatic' diagnosis.

    This good science, to look for causes of symptoms and treat them rather than the symptoms. When the causes are known, we no longer tend to call the symptoms 'mental illness'; Parkinson's, epilepsy, CJD, for examples.

    It would be nice if we could locate the causes of depression; gene therapy, or some such might become a possibility, but everything we know suggests that while there are genetic predisposing factors, and some potential environmental triggers, there is no unique physical causal agent.

    So the good scientist turns to neuroscience. And there is talk of dopamine levels and the like. But here is where the waters start to muddy. Are the chemical imbalances the cause of the depression, or the effect of the depression? Are they different things at all, or the same thing seen in different ways?

    We have a behavioural definition, and we have an associated brain state, unsurprisingly, but we still don't have a cause, and it is the lack of physical cause that makes it a classical mental illness. Exit science, muttering 'give me more research grants'.

    So we resort to psychobabble; talking therapies. There is (because it is the only possibility left) a way of looking at the world and oneself, that leads to depression - a meme. And another name for 'a way of looking at the world and oneself' is 'a psychological theory'.
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    ↪Heister Eggcart
    Any chance of you dropping the ad homs now and addressing the topic?
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    What is your qualification for wagging your fingers so strenuously?
    — unenlightened

    You studied psychology for four years, yet you still can't figure out why it's important to distinguish between different forms of psychology. Wow. *grabs rope*     — Heister Eggcart

    Ah, none at all I see. Keep holding the rope.
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    Uh, no it's not. Your refusal to acknowledge the practical differences between academic psychology and clinical psychology is entirely against the premise of the thread. — Heister Eggcart

    The topic is mental illness diagnosis, if you care to look, and I am fairly confident that that is part of clinical psychology. So kindly do not berate me for talking mainly about clinical psychology. I am well aware that there are practical differences, just as there are between medicine and medical research, but again, so the fuck what?

    If you know nothing about the subject, keep your fingers still, eh? — Heister Eggcart
    I studied psychology for four years at one o them academic universities, where they play with rats, and also monkeys in the good old days. What is your qualification for wagging your fingers so strenuously?
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    By focusing on Clinical Psychology, 97% of Psychology is ignored. — Galuchat

    By focusing on a term that you yourself introduced, you avoid any serious response. By focusing on clinical psychology, everything else is being ignored for the moment - so the fuck what? It's the topic of the thread. But how's about addressing the argument I made which is equally applicable to any area of scientific psychology? I'll spell it out in different words for you:

    Any psychological theory, scientific or not, is an integral part of a psyche; that is it shapes the psyche. Humans are actually changed psychologically by the ways in which they regard and treat each other, and this is in turn changed by the psychological theory that they hold. Therefore, any theory that is accumulative of knowledge is an attempt to fix a nature that is radically fluid and will be as useful as nailing a river to its bed.
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    Do the so-called "hard" sciences have no shortcomings? — Galuchat

    They have limits. The whole notion of 'mental phenomena' is rather confused; are your posts physical phenomena or mental phenomena? I'm not sure what you are referring to.

    The shortcomings of Clinical Psychology are acknowledged by its own practitioners. — Galuchat

    But they are sadly misunderstood, the way a hole in the ground might be misunderstood to be a building with shortcomings. The whole project of scientific psychology is to objectify, and thus dehumanise the person. It is thus not only impossible, but also counterproductive. It fosters a deep misunderstanding of the person, and a dehumanising and therefore maddening treatment. To try and understand others and oneself in a way that dehumanises them also dehumanises oneself, and is itself insane.

    This is not to say that psychology cannot be studied, or that people cannot be treated. It is simply to say that it must be done differently, and practitioners who are worth anything already do so.
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    Thus it turns out that the scientific mindset not only does not work psychologically, but is in fact a mental illness in its own right.
    — unenlightened
    So it is a mental illness to make observations and then categorize those observations? If that is the case, then every human being is mentally ill.     — Harry Hindu

    Science is very successful when directed outwards to the world of objects. But directed inwards at the subject that is (or isn't) scientific, it fails utterly, precisely because it must methodologically eliminate subjectivity in trying to be objective. Thus science applied to the psyche is a madness of the form of going to sea in a sieve. Sieves are great for getting the lumps out of stuff, but useless for keeping one's feet dry.
    Far and few are the lands where the Jumblies live, because they went to sea in a sieve. Not all users of sieves are mad, only those that set sail in them.
  • A beginner question
    On a Thursday, some men come to the house and empty my bin. They generally take everything in the bin, and leave nothing. They don't, fortunately, have to take everything that has ever been in the bin, or will ever be in the bin, as it would be a bit too heavy.

    I think the above makes sense, and is a standard use of the term 'everything'. And yet the two uses within it refer to very different things. One can talk about an absolute, contextless 'everything' as the op does, and ask about it's meaning, but the answers one receives will be more confusing than illuminating, because words without context lose their meaning.
  • Truth or Pleasure?
    It's not all about you.
  • The Epistemology of Mental Illness Diagnosis
    Psychology (a science by virtue of the method it employs to acquire knowledge that can be rationally explained and reliably applied) is very broad (i.e., not limited to a clinical application). — Galuchat

    It's not a very successful science. The scientific basis of medicine in other departments seems to result in cures, ameliorations, a reduction in suffering. In mental health, the exact opposite seems to happen.

    There is a very simple reason for this. In every other field, the object of study is unaffected by the theory applied to it; what the scientist thinks about electrons or fossils does not affect them at all. This cannot be said of humans. One sees the beginnings of this in physical medicine, where one must take great pains to eliminate the placebo effect in order to escape the psychological effects. But one cannot even in principle do this in psychology.

    Thus it turns out that the scientific mindset not only does not work psychologically, but is in fact a mental illness in its own right.
  • That's a Cool Comment
    I'm not saying that we never possess knowledge. I'm simply pointing out that there is a difference between the definition of knowledge (justified true belief), and one's claim to knowledge. Just because one claims to have knowledge it doesn't follow that they do. — Sam26
  • Persuasion - Rand and Bernays
    ↪Benkei
    Nothing wrong with being off-putting, when someone is, well pissing on you, to use your term.
  • Persuasion - Rand and Bernays
    "Honey, I can see you're pissed but can you explain why exactly?" doesn't go down very well when he/she is still venting. — Benkei

    Have you tried "I'm so sorry, I know it's all my fault, I'm lucky you haven't left me long ago. I wish I could be more worthy of you."?
  • Persuasion - Rand and Bernays
    ↪ZzzoneiroCosm
    Your Rand quote is a piece of propaganda. That it is not even half true is not something that is worth arguing about. Rather, ask why someone would want us to think it, and Bernays answers "...to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it". Nobody made you all vote for Trump/Brexit/another war/mass death/the end of human rights, because Rand says so. It must be what you want, then. And if you don't want it, you are a traitor to the masses and antidemocratic.

    And this is more propaganda, that to oppose the dominant propaganda message is anti-democratic. The people have spoken, like a well-trained parrot, and when they have said what we taught them to say, we are their beloved leaders.
  • The Pornography Thread
    I think this thread is fake pornography.
  • God's perspective of skepticism
    Because god is infinitely beyond us, then there’s no way we can reason our way to truth. — heraclitus

    Reason is, what? A step by step one thought after another sort of thing? We cannot reason our way to a cup of tea, one has to get up and put the kettle on. Yet here you are trying to reason your way to unreasonableness. Why?
  • Language games
    In these cases, there is nothing game-like about language use. — Mongrel

    One might say, "there is nothing game-like about Russian roulette, someone could get killed," but that would be to misunderstand how the term 'game' is being used. Dicing with death is still dicing, and dice is a game. So technical writing is a particular language game where the rule is that everything must be nailed down, and inscrutability is forbidden.

    Is not metaphorical truth another rule? — jkop

    Sure it is. But what is metaphorical truth? Since we are playing philosophy, one needs a little clarity here and I think a more clear way of expressing the rule I think you are referring to is that metaphors must be 'apt'. rather than 'true'. Language is a bit like a deck of cards, lots of different games with different rules but using the same deck, from fortune telling, to building structures, from magic tricks, to poker, and so on.
  • Language games
    We want truth to show up here somewhere, right? — Srap Tasmaner

    Truth is one of the rules of some of the games. It's the main rule of "Confession", and an important rule of "Philosophy", "History", and even "Biography". It's not a rule of "Story-telling" or "Poetry". Thus one does not ask if the ring of power was really destroyed in Mt Doom, or in what way my love is like a red red rose.

    My understanding is that to talk of different language games is simply to say that we do different things with words, and the rules vary according to what we are doing.
  • Nuclear war
    Given that nuclear war is madness, and we are not mad, then it is common sense that the least stable personality will dominate. "Don't make me mad, you won't like me when I'm mad." So we have a competition between N. Korea, China, Russia and the US to see who is the maddest leader, and so who will dominate. It's a game of global chicken.

    Greatness is another word for madness.
  • Language games
    ↪Wosret
    That was my thought, a car ferry - vehicles within vehicles. It just seemed a good example of meaning requiring context, the context 'philosophy' being the strange holiday context where one is not actually trying to say anything, or get anywhere, just making sure that the engine is running smoothly.
  • Language games
    I was just passing Mrs un's computer and the film was paused with the subtitle:

    "Will driving passengers please go to their vehicles."

    Any philosopher can tell you that a passenger is not a driver, and folks who have left their vehicle are neither. But after a moment's *huh?*, I intuited the context in which it is a perfectly ordinarily meaningful sentence.
  • What is "self-actualization"- most non-religious (indirect) answer for purpose?
    What is so bad about not being born in the first place? — schopenhauer1

    I don't know, I'd have to try it, and let you kn... no that wouldn't work, would it? Unless we met in the waiting room for incarnation.

    Well my best guess from here is that I wouldn't be here, which is no deficit from the pov of not being here, but from the pov of being here, which is the one I have, I'd be deprived of life, with all its opportunities for carrying crosses and posting insightful comments - in short a tragedy for both the world and me personally. If I was not alive, I would never think about it, or feel deprived, but as I am alive, I do feel grateful and privileged.
  • What is "self-actualization"- most non-religious (indirect) answer for purpose?
    This is an attempt to shut down the argument so you do not have to answer the question directly. The question makes sense, and is legitimate, but you might not like the answer. It ruffles your feathers. — schopenhauer1

    I don't have an argument with you. You put your attitude to life into the form of a question, but I don't have that attitude, so the question has no meaning to me. I can respect your attitude, and your consistency, and I have nothing to persuade you otherwise, except the beauty of life and my own gratitude for it, with all the pains that go with it. Perhaps I have been exceptionally fortunate, I don't know, but burdens can be taken as challenges - how far can you carry your cross?
  • Nuclear war
    Having said that, is it vain for me to be concerned about the shock waves of insecurity, it would send through every military partner the USA has in the world? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

    Not at all. It's not a serious proposal, really, more of a radical alternative to WW3, that couldn't possibly be worse. It would have been a good idea 60 years ago, but now, some middle road must be found. But how's about we have a little reform and set an age limit of maybe 40 on both politicians and voters? Young people are much more sensible than us old fogeys as a rule, and they have more life at stake.
  • Does might make right?
    That is of course assuming that there is a "God" — dclements

    Well not really, it's just a convenient way of putting it - rephrase it all in terms of nature if you like. The point is, if crime didn't pay, criminals wouldn't commit it; if kindness was rewarded, they'd do that instead.

    It is also ironic that supposedly he didn't wish to reward those that tried to make morality consistent yet that is EXACTLY what he happened to do with science making it so that people that can follow the rules of SCIENCE be able to get whatever rewards they they need — dclements

    Well that explains why morality is not science or economics. There is no choice about the rules of science, step off a cliff, and you will obey the law of gravity - believe it or not.
  • What is "self-actualization"- most non-religious (indirect) answer for purpose?
    this reply does not address the three questions directly. — schopenhauer1

    1. Is the happiness worth the suffering?

    It does not compute. It does not add or subtract or multiply.

    2. Why should we endevor to give anything to something that did not exist in the first place?

    This just makes no sense to me. There is no obligation to give anything to something that does not exist. Obviously.

    3.]Would any reason that is based on the parents' lifestyle preferences be a good one for producing a whole new life and all that this will entail for the new being (i.e. the inevitable contingent and structural burdens of life)?

    No. But reasons have no place in procreation.
  • What is "self-actualization"- most non-religious (indirect) answer for purpose?
    Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. — Hume

    I reject the calculus of happiness and suffering entirely as a spurious attempt to rationalise the value of life. I love life, you hate it; there is nothing to argue about.
  • Nuclear war
    a lot of aid — Andrew4Handel

    In relation to the 'defence' budget? I think not. People are dying every day from dirty water and starvation. Perhaps in N. Korea it is difficult, but most places it is really really easy to make a huge difference. Let's do the easy stuff first.

    we the USA have been doing all that you speak of, for those in South Korea and our own soldiers there on the 38th parallel since 1953. How much longer should we try to convince North Korea to try letting us help their nation? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

    I'm under no utopian illusions Tiff, rather, I think it is you that has an overly rosy view of what the US has been doing in the far East. The N. Korean regime is truly revolting, and I am by no means ruling out on principle a strong military intervention and regime change. But it has been Korea's misfortune to be a trophy disputed between China, Japan and Russia for a long time, and then to become, like Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, etc, the site of a proxy war between capitalism and communism. So the US prevented the reunification of the country, not from a great love of Koreans, but to stop the spread of communism. You can call it 'help' if you like, it looks more like Empire building to me. So these guys have been at war with you since 1953, because you have been preventing the unification of the country by your massive invasion and permanent occupation of the south.

    You probably object to my characterisation, but that is surely how it looks from the other side, it and goes a long way to explain the level of paranoia. I wonder what would happen if all troops were withdrawn from the border, and N. Korea was allowed to invade the south. It would be messy, but it would totally destroy the propaganda that the North has been using to control its own people. I don't think the regime would survive its own success. But that is certainly utopian, because the US nor the S. Korean government is going to let it happen.
Home » unenlightened