MU is trying to allude to the contradiction in you definitions. If mental strength is defined in opposition to mental illness-- an absence of incapacity-- it cannot be the response to present mental illness. In this case, it's impossible for someone to have mental strength and also a mental illness.

This is why "mental strength" has no apparent practical definition. In the terms of you definitions, it is not a response to mental illness, some action taken to deal with a present mental illness, but a description of being in a state without mental illness. — TheWillowOfDarkness

First of all, I have never thought about it that way. I dislike this kind of quibbling though because it doesn't get us anything of practical value. We can talk about this day and night - none of us will become any better because of it. What I meant as opposite is this: mental illness is incapacity - mental strength is capacity - NOT lack of incapacity .... I wrote the opposite merely because I didn't want to write the same sentence again using capacity instead of incapacity.

This, however, amounts to an absence of standard in judging the presence of mental illness. In any case, we are relying on a ethic defined in-itself, rather than the presence of a mind.

In this respect, "mental illness" is revealed to be more rhetorical than anything else. It's a form a naturalistic fallacy. Instead of being honest about what at stake, a thought, behaviour or action which ought not exist, we equate what's wrong with the existence of body and thought. In terms of the individual, it's sort of a denial of responsibility. Rather than describe actions or states which ought not be (e.g. lack of motivation, despair, etc., etc.-- depression), someone is just said to be "mental ill." It's nothing more than an image used to position where someone goes in an order-- e.g. the sorts of people who ought to be, the sorts of people who nee treatment or medication, etc.,etc. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay, so what's the practical significance of this? How does that help any of us? Do you become a better person because you know that? Does your neighbour? Do I?

The word preconception has a bad connotation. When someone says you have a preconception, generally it means you have a thought/idea you shouldn't have.

The point, though, is that present reality can't be other than it is. At that moment, you have to recognize and adapt to what is and work with it--that's all you've got at any present moment. — Terrapin Station

Yes, you have to recognise that it is as it is.

But if at present, reality doesn't meet your preconceptions, should you figure that what is is in error and that the way you expected or wanted it to be right now is correct instead? — Terrapin Station

What does error mean? Error means it's not according to how it should be. How should it be? That's what your preconceptions tell you. So that means you recognise your present reality as not being what you want, and instead seek to move towards the reality you do want.

If you influence the world, so that in the future it meets your preconceptions, then you don't have to adjust your preconceptions, right? — Terrapin Station

You don't have to renounce them, no.

I don't quite like this academic approach. You're not really quibbling with ideas, you're quibbling with their formulations. But their formulations are ultimately quite irrelevant to their applicability, or to their value as ideas.

You are committing the error that Nietzsche spoke against: "Perhaps - thus he [Socrates] should have asked himself - what is not intelligible to me is not necessarily unintelligent? Perhaps there is a realm of wisdom from which the logician is exiled?"

This is a very common error amongst academics. There are some peasants though in this world, who have less than 1% the "knowledge" and "sophistication" of an intellectual, and yet can get a lot more done. How come? Because a lot of this quibbling is empty of substance and useless.

"The only error is your failure to adjust your preconceptions to reality." — Terrapin Station

I don't like this formulation, because it presumes there is a "reality" set in stone, and your preconceptions have to match that reality. But I think that you and your preconceptions play a role in affecting your environment and reality. Your preconceptions may very well become reality if you play your cards well. My point is precisely that one must not abandon their preconceptions - but rather so seek to organise and control their environment, that their preconceptions can find expression.

I've had many preconceptions about reality. I've held onto them - some of them for 15 years or more. And I've also had the great great pleasure of seeing some of them turn into reality - So Terrapin, I cannot agree with your distinction, because it seems to suggest one must abandon their preconceptions in favour of some given reality. And that's precisely what I'm negating. Reality is not just given - but also made. And yes, that means you'll have to fight some people, you'll have to battle some forces from your environment, and seek to win. But that's what life is about. If you give up your preconceptions - as you call them, then you give up yourself, and that's just a shame.

"they've been wronged by this bad guy". — Gooseone

Well they have been wronged by that bad guy. But the fault isn't with that guy - that guy is a bad guy. It's their judgement that's the fault - they didn't judge him correctly. If they had judged him correctly from the beginning, they would never have been harmed. So their failure is merely the opportunity to begin again, as Henry Ford said, this time more intelligently.

I mentioned "stereotypical", it's not always the case but I've observed this behaviour in real life many times over. I am informed here by George Lakoff's strict father model when assessing conservatism and the concept of being an individual responsible moral agent weighs heavy, generally speaking. — Gooseone

Well I experienced the strict mother model and I am a conservative and an extrovert.

If combined with being extravert to a high degree, it would seem likely that there's little awareness of any self serving bias at work. Ascribing failure to environmental circumstances internally could appear to external observers as "not learning from mistakes". It could also just be plain stupidity though... — Gooseone

Still, I fail to see this. Whether I fail in action X because of my environment or because of myself, to me, it's the same thing. I failed. Doesn't matter how and why. If it's because of the environment, it's my fault - I should have controlled the environment, or at least predicted it. Ascribing failure to circumstances seems to be merely a way to deceive yourself that you failed because of the environment - which isn't true - you always fail because you don't manage your environment well enough.

But BC, I am left-wing. I am against globalization, against corporatism, against lobbying, against special interests and donors, pro environmental protection. But I also happen to be against progressivism in culture :P

Would that coincide with a stereotypical extravert conservative who classifies success as a personal achievement yet ascribes failure to environmental circumstance? — Gooseone

What does classifying success as personal achievement and ascribing failure to environmental circumstance have to do with being an extravert conservative?

I suppose my initial guess is that I am not my body, but my body is a part of who I am. I am Moliere, and I have a body, rather than am my body. — Moliere

Yeah I think this is just about right. The human person is more than just the body.

It's that they can't learn from their mistakes. — Mongrel

That sounds to me like being stupid though :P and stupidity and arrogance together are quite a deadly combination. But I'm not sure it's just that - some people just can't do certain things (well they can do them theoretically, but in practice they never do).

But I don't understand why anyone would be like that. I'm very competitive by nature, I have to win. So in my mind, not learning from mistakes - that's being stupid because it stops me from winning. It's all very pragmatic for me in this regard.

There's a wrong way to take it, though. That's all I was saying. — Mongrel

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a wrong way to take it. Are you referring to ego-maniacs? And if so, what does that mean exactly? Very often our world chastises people with big egos - "Ah you have such a big ego, it's all about yourself!" - as if having a big ego were a moral failure in itself. The truth is we don't really control the way our ego is. By the time we start having a sufficient degree of self-determination our ego has already crystallised, and it is what it is. But instead of teaching these folks how to use their big egos properly, we punish them because they are big. Many of these people do suffer because of it - some of them quite often developing all sorts of neuroses. So if by "wrong way" you mean a way to punish them simply because their egos are big, then I would be against this. The whole idea of chastising those with big egos emerged because they make us - the ones doing the chastising - feel threatened. I can prove it in fact by example if you want. There's a certain way of writing I can use which will annoy and provoke my interlocutor. If you stop and ask yourself why you are annoyed - then I'm not sure what you'll discover. Why would you, for example, react negatively, or feel negatively if I were to say something like "I'm superior to you"? Clearly if you have a solid vision of yourself, and feel comfortable about yourself - then you'll be like "This fella Agustino has really gone a bit cuckoo hasn't he? He has lost even the little bit of intelligence he had left! >:O" - but many people would react like "Ahh, Agustino, this shameless bastard!" Why? Because they'd feel threatened - they, not me, in that case, would be insecure, and my bluff/boast would merely illustrate it.

So I'm not sure what ego-maniac is. Is ego-maniac the kind of person who enjoys prospering at the expense of others, or just is happy when others suffer? That to me is just being a mean and nasty person, nothing to do with ego. You could be like that regardless of whether your ego is big or small, and what you need is to learn the joy of compassion.

Is ego-maniac someone who is controlled by his ego? That person to me is just a good show. Maim and bait them - they always bite. It's fun to play with them. They always hurt themselves, they can't control their behaviour. They have no strategy. The smallest insult and they go in a rage. Their problem is that they are self-destructive - their ego simply is destroying itself. What they need to do is simply learn to control their ego, not to make it smaller or bigger.

Talking about ego - I once played poker with a psychologist (amongst others). Me and him dominated, but I ultimately won the game. And so I mocked him a little (he was a friend of a friend - and I had just met him)- "So tell me, you know so much about the human mind, and can't even beat me? I outsmart you?" - and he responded - "That's what I want you to think ;) " - so I asked "What do you mean that's what you want me to think? I won the money!" and he said - "Well, you're not thinking long-term" - me, "What long term? The game is over!" - him, "You outsmarted me and used all your tricks. I learned them, you are now like an open book who thinks he knows everything I can do. I haven't used any of my tricks, but when I'll get you to play me somewhere in Monaco on much more serious money, then you'll understand who the real winner today has been!" >:O I respect that man. I bowed to him right there and then, in front of everyone, and thanked him for educating me.

But Hanover, you are the master of wit. You certainly have to post something more original, more worthy of your name in the standardless section. I mean is that all you've got "BAM!"? All you've got to offer when the gloves go off?

Bottom line: failure is supposed to hurt. It's supposed to bring you to your knees. That's what makes you stop and learn something. People who don't go through that pain are ego-maniacs. They'll fail over and over because they can't learn. — Mongrel

I disagree that failure is supposed to hurt. Only losers cry about spilt milk (and we've all been losers at some point). And no, not crying isn't being an ego-maniac, although the ego does probably play a role in it. A large ego, by the way, is only a handicap when it runs out of control, but otherwise a large ego can be a huge advantage - like a powerful engine. I don't know if you've ever tried jet skis, but there's generally two versions. One is heavier and thus easier to control. The other is much lighter, can go much faster, but much more difficult to control (and you could injure yourself if you don't know what you're doing). A big ego is like the lighter jet ski - in the hands of a master it's very useful, in the hands of the idiot it's disastrous.

I am a lover of Asian martial arts and related knowledge. I've practiced several forms through out my life and I've always read books like The Art of War, The Book of Five Rings, Hagakure etc . The ego is not your enemy. You have to befriend the ego, whatever and however it is, it's a tool, just like any other that you have available. The only thing is that you must not let it control you and govern you. It must be servant, not master of the house. Sometimes the ego is useful, sometimes it's not - it's up to you to decide when.

Have you ever read Nassim Taleb's Anti-Fragile? — Agustino

I'm asking you because Taleb's metaphor of anti-fragility is what I mean by mental strength. The idea is that there are three types of organisms: fragile, robust, and anti-fragile. Fragile organisms are always hurt by pressure/stress. Robust organisms aren't affected by pressure/stress, they can withstand it without being hurt. Anti-fragile organisms not only aren't affected by pressure/stress, but they thrive under it, they are made better and stronger by it. Taleb's anti-fragile hero, for example, is Seneca. I would think most of us, and Taleb concurs, are in the fragile or robust category. I think the reason why many of us, myself included, have suffered or continue to suffer from mental illness is precisely that - our fragility or our robustness being overcome. But that's simply because we have never worked on ourselves, we have never trained ourselves to be any different. The idea is to move from that category into the anti-fragile category. That, in itself in my mind, offers quite possibly the best protection from mental illness as well as all the other things life can throw at ya. But of course - the corporatists at AT&T and so forth - they never want people to be in the anti-fragile category. They're too difficult to control and manage. Free people, in fact, cannot be managed. Better to tell them it's supposed to hurt - that way they'll be docile. If you teach them to thrive from stress - my God, they'll take the liberty of striving from the stress of opposing you!

Oh how unfortunate, they have to be called the same way men are called, where are the feminists? They need to be liberated so that they shall take pride in being called actresses instead of having to be called actors like their male counterparts. Who says they have to be like the men are to be worthy?

I can feel the erotic tension between you two. Agustino, do you want to offer our room to Mongrel? We have a soft bed and fluffy pillows, c'mon! — Heister Eggcart

I would but I'm afraid that we'll find out that Mongrel isn't a woman, but a man >:O She doesn't seem annoyed when called an actOR instead of an actTRESS.

I suck at lying. — Mongrel

Yes, I can see that right here:

No — Mongrel

Are you an actor? :P

Yes, I understand why you don't answer the question, don't worry >:O

"Now answer my question" is not a request in American English. It's a command. It's a sentence a parent would utter to a child.

Street psychology... what power strategy did I just employ? — Mongrel

:-! The more intelligent Mongrel, is the one who knows how to hide their intelligence.

I wasn't trying to insult you. If I said to somebody "Now answer my question." I'd expect them to respond: "Go fuck yourself." — Mongrel

No you weren't "trying" but that's what you actually did as anyone with two eyes can tell you.

As for saying "now answer my question" - it seems only natural, you ask me questions and expect me to answer, I ask you and expect you to answer, and in case you don't I remind you that I'm interested in an answer. There's nothing uncivil in that.

Some people enjoy talking to barking dogs. I don't, Agustino. — Mongrel

Right. Well, goodluck with that. Any particular reason why the Great Mongrel falls so low so as to respond to someone's poor misunderstanding by insults? I thought better of you, but it seems I was wrong.

No. Should I? — Mongrel

Whether you should or you shouldn't that's up to you to decide. Now answer my other question.

Bottom line: failure is supposed to hurt. It's supposed to bring you to your knees. That's what makes you stop and learn something. People who don't go through that pain are ego-maniacs. They'll fail over and over because they can't learn. — Mongrel

Have you ever read Nassim Taleb's Anti-Fragile?

OK. Practice without a license if you want. If you aren't an ego-maniac you'll discover the downside to that. :) — Mongrel

What's that have to do with anything? What am I practicing without a license? I haven't practiced anything.

Also, when I'm talking about mental illness, I mean real mental illness, not circumstantial depression or anything else that's "normal." — Heister Eggcart

Okay, but please understand that for the most part that's not the type of mental illness I'm referring to. I'm not referring to Alzheimer's for example, or other conditions which I consider to be physical rather than mental - as I have defined the terms.

As I wrote in my first post, diseases like Alzheimer's are still categorized as mental illnesses, even though mental infers mind, when really it should be brain — Heister Eggcart

I know, but I said I'm not operating under that definition.

But I also realize from the historical standpoint that mental healthcare in Europe has a track record of being abysmally worse than really anywhere else in the world, which is perhaps still true now. — Heister Eggcart

Maybe, I don't know how things are in the US.

social skills won thru being an outsider — csalisbury

you learned how to conceal your actions better than — csalisbury

Isn't "learning how to conceal my actions better than" a social skill? Concealing can only be undertaken in a society, and when it is undertaken successfully, that sounds to me like a social skill. And how else can it be learned, except by having to be an outsider and being forced to learn it? The kid who grew up in a rosy environment won't have it. It's never been demanded of him. He's at a disadvantage. If a dictator comes to power, and for whatever reason hates his race, family, religion, etc. and orders all like him killed - then he's likely to die, while someone like me, even though I'm also the target, I'm more likely to survive, because I have a skill he doesn't. My lack of fortune, was actually my greatest fortune. You can say he's living a better life than me, and he's happier than me CURRENTLY. But wait until the shit hits the fan, and then we'll see. And it's inevitable - in this world, ultimately, the shit always hits the fan. That's why you should rigurously train yourself, physically and mentally, to be capable to go through whatever life can throw at you. I have a feeling that by their acceptance of the "rosy childhood is good" theory, psychologists are actually leading to mental weakness, which any day could turn in mental illness. We need a theory which prepares people to face the harshness of life as it is. And life is harsh - Schopenhauer was right, it's like a slaughterhouse, and we're all waiting our time. So to help people, we have to help them become strong, first and foremost, before anything else - psychologically strong.

I'm with Nicholas Taleb from Anti-Fragile. A stressed organism who responds well to stress is more capable than an unstressed organism to respond to difficult situations.

It's how you react to failure that signals your mental health. — Mongrel

That's the kind of generality that I don't think can quite help someone in practice. The problem is precisely that some people have a certain reaction, and others have a different reaction to the same issue. Why? Given person X today, he cannot alter his reaction that he will have 10 minutes later when he finds out Y. So he's fucked. If he's ready - if his worldview, self-conception and position are such that he will have a positive reaction to Y, he will achieve mental strength. If he's not ready - and his worldview, self-conception etc. aren't such that he will tackle the situation positively, then he will be likely to suffer of mental illness. So what then are the essential elements of worldview and self-conception, according to you, that enable a positive reaction to failure? Given more time than 10 minutes, person X could use that information to alter his sense of self - or perceive why such an alteration would be beneficial to him.

So how does one spell out the difference between mental strength as conformism, and mental strength as resistance to a mad society? — unenlightened

Perhaps I wrongly defined my terms, because they don't account for "normal" behaviour - or standard, average, call it what you will behaviour - neither "mental strength" nor "mental illness", but rather a kind of complacent conformism as you'd say. I would intuit that both mental strength and mental illness have to do with non-conformism of one kind or another. Successful non-conformism we label mental strength - non-successful one, mental illness. What makes for successful non-conformism? What is successful non-conformism?

Shame has to do with failing to live up to another's standards — csalisbury

What do you think about people who fail to live up to their own standards? Don't you think they are also more prone to mental illness? And if the answer is "yes", does this suggest, to you, that one should have and maintain no standards for oneself? Would this offer a better approach to life? Or perhaps someone should do something entirely different, and if so, what would that be?

But this seems to say that being is being, which is a tautology. — Thorongil

Yes, because it aimed solely to point at what Being isn't. Being isn't a being. Existence isn't an existent. Existents are in existence. Existence isn't itself in existence.

According to what you have said and to classical theism as I understand it, we can't say God exists; hence my curiosity that classical theists like Aquinas still proceed to concoct proofs that he does. — Thorongil

We can but we're not too sure what we mean when we say it. You insist on being sure of what the meaning of your statements is. They don't.

So? He was an academic theologian, not a candidate for sainthood. — Bitter Crank

The purpose of theology and philosophy is to free man of the chains of vice, and lead him towards an enlightened state of being. Thus, if his philosophy didn't even help him, why should I trust it? I insist on the question. Philosophy is not just empty thought, it has to work. If it doesn't work, isn't it useless? Obviously thinking of God as the ground of being wasn't helpful for Tillich.

(except your comments on your immunity to adultery. those might then go down the drain). — Bitter Crank

>:O

You mean this Tillich? :-* It seems not even his philosophy could save him, why should any of us trust it?

But I've never denied that what you say is true. I believe it myself in fact. I've witnessed a loved one suffer and die because of Alzheimer, which causes your mental condition to degenerate, to become aggressive, etc. Basically it changes the personality and destroys one's memory, especially of the short-term. You can try a lot of things to help in these situations, except that all help is likely to fail.

If you read my definition:

Incapacity of non-physical origin (non-genetic, non-inherited, non-aquired from accidents/diseases) which prevents one from successfully navigating and prospering in one's environment — Agustino

Then you'll see that such a condition doesn't qualify as mental illness. Alzheimer's, for example, would classify as a disease of the brain, as the brain physically changes. It's a physical disease first and foremost.

but until you've stared insanity in the eyes, and seen someone you love fall into shambles and disrepair, and you can't do anything about it, then you'll understand that mental illness can be gravely serious. — Heister Eggcart

Me and my family have gone through that. I understand that mental illness can be serious.

Major depression and schizophrenia, say, should be treated just as cancer and heart disease are - as destructive, physically formed blemishes on an already fallen and frail human body. — Heister Eggcart

Not all mental illness occurs in old age though. Consider this for example:
https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=PMC3014899_1471-2458-10-745-1&req=4
Schizophrenia is a disease that regularly and most frequently starts amongst the young, and improves as they age in the intensity of the symptoms. The patients, in other words, learn to manage it better.

Personally I consider conditions to be worst when they could be helped but aren't. Many of those cases you refer to simply cannot be helped much. But then many of the young who are suffering of all sorts of different mental conditions, many could be helped, but currently aren't helped. I think that's a problem, we should do better for those people, simply because we can do better.

Overall thanks for sharing your experience, I appreciate it! All perspectives are valuable and offer insights, and the more we have the better a view we can all form of the matters at hand.

The problem with this thread is your attempt to impose standards inconsistent with this forum — Hanover

And? ;) Have you looked what part of the forum I placed this thread in? Probably you haven't. So you should.

I remind you of the rules:

Context matters:
The amount of leeway you get on the above depends to a degree on where you post and what the topic under discussion is. You're likely to have more freedom in the Shoutbox or in discussions in the Lounge, for example, than in the philosophical discussions. — Baden

Some of us didn't socialize well as children. We didn't fit into "the group". We were outliers. We were deviants in various ways. Because of our outsider status, (not always outside, but outside often enough to be very familiar with the experience) we failed to develop both social knowledge (how society works) and social skills (being able to move smoothly through society. — Bitter Crank

I was like that. I was also very anxious, and have had anxiety since I was a child. But I feel that because of being like that I developed more pragmatic social knowledge and social skills - because I simply don't care what others think. While others are afraid to act, I'm not. That's why I think mental strength and mental illness are very close to each other, and very far from normality. I'm not normal. I've never been, and I know I haven't, nor will I ever be. But take one issue on which I've had, let's say a positive experience, and others would have had negative experiences.

When I was in high school there was no question about having a girlfriend, because my parents (well my mother really) never allowed it. Nor would they allow me to go out at night or anything of that sort. But I knew this. I knew this since I was much younger. And I was patient. I learned my environment. I analysed what my parents allowed and what they didn't. I learned my school environment. I never gave my parents the impression I was interested in girls. They would never see me around any girl - not even talking. Quite the contrary actually! I never went out at night - never even asked them to let me. And so they grew complacent. I soon started dating a girl. When I would go see her, I'd say I'm going to meet a friend. I never even tried to tell my parents. I used technology to keep up with her. Technology that they could never check because they didn't understand it. All in all, I never took a risk to do this - they never found out because they never could. I did it within the constraints of my environment and I was successful. But there were a lot of ways I could've gone wrong. If I had asked to go out at night, they would have become suspicious. If I would have tried to directly fight against them, I would have lost. And my mother was always at home - there was no day when she wasn't in town. And many did, in similar circumstances, choose a wrong path, and thus had a negative experience instead of a positive one. What made the difference between me and them? We both had environments which were out to get us. Why did I succeed? It was this practical skill - patience, waiting, planning, never hurrying, never taking a risk, always acting when things were certain. But most other people, I noticed from my friends back then, weren't like this. They couldn't wait. They didn't trust their thinking. They were put off by the long-term uncertainty and preferred the greater short-term uncertainty instead. They took bigger short-term risks. And so forth. But to give you the end of the story, alas, not even my wits could beat the evil of globalisation, so when my family moved countries - I couldn't outsmart that, and gone was my girlfriend - gone with the winds >:O

The disagreement here would lie in that "prospering", to me, requires a certain amount of mutual interaction with the social environment, it's the "navigating" put into practice. Though gaining a specific form of feedback from the environment would still be an egoistic ideal, even for the most egoistic ideals to be fulfilled there's still an environment which needs to provide a framework which enables the distinction between other and self, The way in which "I" would see myself prosper depends greatly on the role I would play in my environment. — Gooseone

Certainly I think you are right. We are always being in the world - in an environment. Prospering does have to do with an environment, but it doesn't have to do with what the environment asks from you - or expects you to do. I incline to think that prospering has more to do with being capable to organise the constraints of one's environment in such a way that one is capable of achieving their goals in the given environment. Someone's goals can be contrary to the goals of their environment. But still - the achievement of their goal depends on their skill both at perceiving their environment and perceiving, to use a chess analogy, what moves they need to make in order to reach their goals.

And I think we see this all the time. Two people with similar or identical goals placed in the same environment. One of them succeeds in reaching their goal, the other doesn't. I think the difference is made by a certain practical skill, which has nothing to do with their intelligence, degrees, or otherwise, a skill at navigating their environment. It could be that the more educated one, the one with more degrees, better resources and so forth fails, and the other succeeds. I think it's less about the cards one has, and more about how they're played to put it differently.

That is why I would speculate that "mental strength" has to do with this practical skill more than it does with the condition of the body or the mind or the environment. Someone can have a mind which is prone to anxiety, and still not be impaired by it. Someone can be in an unfriendly environment, and still not be stopped by it. Someone can have a broken body and not be stopped by it. And so forth. Take for example this man:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kxSrPD__BA

This is an excellent example of mental strength - in fact an example of exceptional mental strength. He overcame such great odds, he played such a hard hand so well.

Good thread btw, I feel psychology is where exact science and philosophy meet and where the functionality comes into play. — Gooseone

Thanks for your kind words, I appreciate!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience! You've gone through a lot! Real knowledge doesn't require degrees or books, but just a careful understanding of your own experiences.

This would entail the "prospering" Agustino in definition of mental illness,which I wholeheartedly disagree with. — Gooseone

We may disagree about the "prospering" but we certainly agree about a lot of other things. Although I'm not sure how you have defined prospering - I would just define it as successfully advancing towards one's goals, whatever those goals happen to be.

a lot of what is considered mental illness at this point in time is rather behaviour which is far from the norm. — Gooseone

I agree.

I would not necessarily see people undergoing such experiences as "cranks"; where it can become troubling fast if such people take apparitions as a bigger cue then "objective" reality. — Gooseone

Yes, agreed.

what is called "mental illness" is no physiological defect and, if it's considered a mere "mental" defect, it's something which could benefit from philosophy being put into practice. — Gooseone

Yes, I also agree here!