You can be the most moral person in the world, but if you don't realize what good you do do, then your mental health won't be any good. However, if one does realize that they're doing good, that they're kind, helpful, thoughtful, etc., then I very much think that one's conscience will impact their mental health for the better. — Buxtebuddha

So, it might be that having a sound mental health goes together with being ethical.

I don't know of any person who wasn't sane and concerned with ethics or practicing good moral standing.

I can relate to being on SSRI's and Benzos for almost 30 years now and I can tell you that the reason I was put on the medications is not the same reason I am still on them today. I am on them today because as you might know, once you start on them there is really no way off. I mean sure you could stop taking them but those around you, many who have only known you on these meds, do have a bit of a say in how they are or are not affecting you. Same with the discontinuation of any med and how it affects you. When I share with the Doctor that I don't think (Insert SSRI name here for the list is long) is working anymore they either have started me on another SSRI or one even gave a secondary med to improve the impact of the SSRI. In doing so there is absolutely no way to know if you are stable without meds and when you go off the medication, how do we know if we are stable if it has taken a medication to achieve stability for over a decade? There really is no way to find the 'real you' which was a slice in time before the addition of meds because while on the meds, time has passed, anxieties have changed focus and we have grown. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I can relate. I have no idea how I would be like without my meds. It's an appealing thought to get off the meds and live about without them; but, getting off some of my meds might cause a rebound effect. Anyway, it seems like it would be best to not fantasize too much about 'what if's' of 'maybe's'.

I have been told that people who are manic or people who ruminate have learned to enjoy the unmedicated high and who wouldn't? I know that I still cycle on medication, I just am more apathetic so it takes a LOT to get me riled but when it does, oooo just be careful you are not in my line of fire. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yeah, some people don't take the consequences of their disorder under serious consideration and go through life unmedicated. Sure, that's possible; but, if you want to have a family or maintain a stable job or have friends, then what's wrong with taking a small pill once a day(?) Then there's the issue of people self-medicating. Better to do it under the supervision of a doctor than yourself, methinks.

You are the only person I know that has ever denied it.
You've already offered evidence in your own post.
Wittgenstein spent his life in existential angst wrestling with his own nature. Nothing I have read denies this anxiety, and his homosexuality.
I can't offer you hard evidence. — charleton

He came close to losing his mind and suicide while in Norway, supposedly relaxing and thinking about philosophy. That's what going against Proposition 7 in the TLP, will do. And,

He was homosexual from what I've read but may have been celibate his whole life. I don't know about that last past though.

I didn't know calling Wittgenstein as a 'saint' could be interpreted as offensive.

I stand corrected.

Of that I am aware of. I just used the term figuratively.

Good point in the second link. Wittgenstein wasn't a saint but sure comes damm close.

In my long history of taking antidepressants and anti anxiety drugs, I certainly found that to be true. If they work, which they don't always do for a given individual, they eventually fail--usually. I'd say benzodiazapine drugs like Xanax or Ativan fail predictably, or in susceptible persons, become an addiction issue. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, can't beat homeostasis... However, there just might be the need to cycle medications over time. In my case, the Zyprexa was working too well, so I asked my p-doc to switch me to a more activating mood stabilizer, Abilify. I'm also on Zoloft, so the two are working pretty well for my needs. Eventually, once the depression goes down in magnitude, I hope to add Strattera for having inattentive ADD.

The Radical Therapist magazine (long since defunct) had for a slogan "Therapy means change, not adjustment" and illustrated their motto with a chick hatched out of its shell (change). I think that is very true, but... Most people can not simply change their circumstances and environment, however. We have roles which we want to fulfill, and are expected or needed by others to fulfill, and just up and leaving job, home, husband, wife, children, dog, and/or cat behind is not something most people want or are willing to do, and for very good reason. — Bitter Crank

Dang, sounds like a nice magazine. Would have paid to read it. I bet the pharmaceutical industry would have destroyed it had it been around nowadays. Yeah, life isn't getting easier for the middle class and lower class people. Fortunately, the U.S. has a very progressive tax system, and the lower class often get paid for being poor, how awkward?

Well, Posty, psychopathic and remorselessly criminal behavior is considered a severe mental illness. People found to act out psychopathic murderous thoughts usually end up on death row, life in prison without parole, or in a high security psychiatric facility for life. — Bitter Crank

Yes, although I haven't done research, I would think a form of therapy for them would be in the art of ethics? Perhaps I see myself working with inmates teaching them philosophy or ethics to reduce recidivism.

One can dream.

Someone who is in stark-raving-mad-psychosis will eventually calm down (especially with major tranquilizers) and then function much better. Even return to mental health. — Bitter Crank

How does one 'return' to mental health? It seems like a statement worth exploring in how it derives its meaning.

Perhaps I should amend what I have stated in the OP.

Namely, that being concerned with ethics is indicative of sound mental health; but, not a causal factor in facilitating it. Sounds kinda strange now that I re-read it.

That seems to be the case. Perhaps the basic mechanism of affecting mental performance with drugs was present in the first generation of psychoactive meds (like tri-cyclic anti-depressants) and hasn't really been improved upon, except for reducing some side effects. — Bitter Crank

I know of many drugs and have researched their efficacy. They don't hold up to some older medications, like Nardil (Penelzine) or Parnate (Tranylcypromine). If you read the piles on online reports on those drugs for depression, they are considered the gold standard for social anxiety with depression.

However, there is an issue that I haven't mentioned about antidepressant medications, they tend to poop out with time. In my experience, after a while the antidepressant effects subside and your left with feeling apathetic or unmotivated.

And, motivation is an important thing, don't you think? I would say that motivation or the desire to get better is the best prognosis for remission from depression. What these drugs do is make you content with everything (mostly the SSRI's), and leave you or me, from personal experience, apathetic and unmotivated. That's a hole many people get stuck in. Doing some armchair psychology, I suppose that the best time to address depression is when you first get into it, then the cause of it is easier to discern, I think.

Anyway, I went on a tangent there, but take it for what it is, some armchair psychology.

Conflating immoral and unethical behavior with mental illness would seem to undermine the concept of responsibility. SOMETIMES people behave badly because they are mentally ill, but usually people of sound mind decide to behave badly, and are responsible for their misdeeds. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I agree that conflating the two isn't wise. Perhaps, it can be argued that immoral and unethical behavior goes against what our conscience would have us do best, and that in itself is a manifestation of some disquietude in the mind of the person? Mind you, I don't have petty theft on my mind, more like murder or such acts of brutality.

I would think that an unempathetic, psychopathic, and remorseless criminal should be considered a 'mental illness' or at least some illness of some sort, one so dire and socially unacceptable that would require society to designate special housing areas (prisons) to hold such people there(?)

I hold that people can choose to be dishonest (lie, cheat, steal) and be mentally healthy. What they can't do is be moral or ethical while they are lying, cheating, or stealing. — Bitter Crank

Surely, crime, murder, and other such acts are a sickness of the society in which one resides. Eric Fromm wrote about this in great detail. I really should read more of his books, I only skimmed his, The Sane Society. In general, I think that the term 'mental disorder or illness' is detrimental to the prognosis of the patient. It labels them as dysfunctional and incapable of performing mundane activities (coming from someone on disability and wondering if I can at least work part-time on my disability type because they vary).

But, wouldn't it be a good society if its participants were equally good, and concerned with the examined life?

I'm here. Let me meditate on what you said and see if I can muster anything up.

I would like to point out that most of the predominant Western ethical schools of thought originated after Socrates's death and with Aristotle's virtue ethics.

Despite saying that Socrates might have been a gadfly to be around with, we are reminded of how many schools of thought were inspired by Socrates death. Thus, it must mean something to act ethically or hold morals dear to oneself if so many people were inspired by Socrates life.

What does this say about a sound and healthy mind? It would seem to imply that having a sound mind goes along with having a sound moral system to abide by, and with that creating a character admired by many?

w on earth is anyone expected to know what is wrong and what right if we adults don’t first have a cognitively present, perfectly justified, absolute truth about what ethics are? — javra

Part of what my first post is implying is that there need not be a 'perfectly justified' or 'absolute truth' in practicing ethics. There can be different paths. However, eventually, some norms are established, like not killing another human being, etc.

Rather, it is the process of being ethical, or observing morals, that brings about the change in character or the mind which leads to happiness.

Well, prime certainly are taking more drugs as every behavior is now considered and abnormal for marketing reasons. — Rich

That's an interesting point. I think there is certainly a tendency to overprescribe medications like SSRI's ADHD stimulant medication and even antipsychotics like Abilify as an augmenter to depression and antidepressant medication. The downside of this is that you have more people who are exposed to the side effects of antidepressants and other medications. In some cases, this leads to suicide.

However, the flipside is that we have fewer people being institutionalized and requiring hospitalizations or costly public upkeep of facilities for those suffering from various mental disorders.

The downside of all this is that you have the few who are pigeonholed, others who just need talk therapy rather than medication, which I talked about in another thread about the unfortunate rift between psychology and psychiatry.

Going a little deeper, most of the medications don't even work as compared to the placebo effect. Something that still boggles my mind, as you would think depression or schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are resistant to 'wishful thinking', yet that is not the case. Most of the new drugs aren't even superior to some 20 or 30-year-old Prozac or Clozapine.

Maybe it is the drugs that are affecting behavior? — Rich

Well, we have no way of knowing whether a person will respond or how they will respond to medication. So, I'm not sure what it is that you are trying to address.

Hmm, guess no takers then. I thought it was an edifying thought that what is ethical can be thought to be conducive to a sound and healthy mind?

People are just living their lives. Some fit in better than others. — Rich

Yeah, well people are becoming more prone to poor mental health due to various factors that living in modern day society entails. So, perhaps if there is a benefit in treating or preventing mental health issues would be to behave morally or with ethics in mind.

There is no way to define mental health from a philosophical perspective. — Rich

Aristotle thought differently. He describes attaining a state of eudaimonia, which would seem to be a state of clear and sound mind.

There are countless other philosophies and religions that have their own way of achieving peace and tranquility. Perhaps, truth is a pathless land or one can achieve happiness through being ethical or moral?

I have a special place with some philosophers who take their teachings seriously, who are sincere and honest.

So, this leaves me with a couple of prominent philosophers.

The Stoics, I have no preference; but, at the same time, it's hard to understand how Marcus Aurelius wanted his Meditations to be burned and not given to the public, while at the same time being so hard on himself in his Meditations. Knowing the fact that he wanted the Meditations to be burned really changed my mind about his inner life.

Diogenes, although I don't really like philosophers who act like fundamentalists or take their philosophy to the extreme, it seems that the Stoics were right about the Cynics just taking a shortcut to practicing good moral conduct.

Wittgenstein, I think this doesn't require further explanation. It's obvious that he was not only a supreme philosopher but as well as a great human being at it, too.

And, Socrates. He might have been a martyr; but, again the cause was worth it.

For me, poetry either works or it doesn't. Most of it doesn't. If it doesn't for you, that's just the way things go. — T Clark

I did like the “Tao Te Ching” – Lao Tzu poem though.

I never understood poetry outside of English class lessons analyzing them. I feel like I'm missing out on something but have difficulty in understanding poems as they can be quite deep in meaning.

An interesting question would be of the sort, can the conceptual schema of a lion be able to incorporate elements of human grammar or is that not possible. Or rather vice versa since intelligence would prohibit a lion to reach our level of communication.

I think Wittgenstein's would have made more sense if he referred to apes instead of lions.

Ah, nvm.

Then how do you go about that if lions could speak we would not understand them?

I don't entirely understand that statement or sentence when confronted with the private language argument? Is it to say that language can be private if the non-cognitive or pre-linguistic and other characteristics of its participants are that radically different?

Yeah, but what about qualia?

I'm just saying that the notion of a private language or private pain is still being brought up to this day with the mentioning of qualia or the Chinese room.

Yeah but what about p-zombies and Searls Chinese room argument?

Meaning is self generated. Posing the question in terms of life endowing meaning to oneself is a categorical error that I see too often to address every time.

Perhaps, it is too much to demand from a person that they are full of compassion and self-love to be able to apply the golden rule effectively? After all, the world can be a crummy place, and things do happen that make life less fun or appealing.

Then, would it be appropriate to ask that they simply have an attitude of care, with regards to other people?

Would that be sufficient to guarantee that the golden rule can be followed and practiced?

Yeah, there's that cultural relativism. Yet, the golden rule or the more refined version of it being Rawl's veil of ignorance still is valid given any culture and its norms.

It's troubling when there's nobody around to enforce the rules of good conduct. However, I expect banishment from the society to be in general the most severe form of punishment or putative measure of choice in said primitive or such societies.

If you can't care for me, why bother with you?

It's interesting to note how some tribes or primitive societies go about the whole ordeal. I'm on my cell and don't have the papers but it would seem that people in said primitive societies feel a much greater sense of.bond with their fellow kindsmen. I assume that would be another prerequisite for the golden rule to be maintained in practice.

Isn't this a bit like your last thread? — Noble Dust

Yeah, just the logical follow-up.

The quite depressing view though. In part inspired by Harry Frankfurt's, The Reasons of Love.

It's interesting watching the fad move from Bitcoin to Litecoin. Wonder where the herd is headed next, and who's the piper setting the tune?

Yeah, I thought that was an important point worth mentioning.

My whole point with the thread is that we often treat ourselves worse than how we would treat a friend in a similar situation.

Here's an example:

I got a bad grade on my final. So, now I feel angry at myself for some reason, the mental thoughts fly around saying I'm a failure or just suck at the subject or I label myself with some terms.

Now, a friend is in a similar situation, they did bad on a test, and you notice that they seem down and angry or frustrated. Your reaction won't (I hope) be that same as what you told yourself for getting a bad grade on your final. You would console them or tell them that next time they'll do better, or that it just wasn't a good day.

So, we tend to treat other people better than how we treat ourselves. The question is why?

No, I'm saying that a narcissist is not concerned with treating people as well as themselves, so the saying has no bearing on their attitude to other people. They simply don't care about other people. What's most of importance to them is their own self.

My impression is that love for one's self-has to come before being able to apply the golden rule in its true form or effectively. No?

IDK, just feel that I have to be at a high level of mental exertion to understand what I'm reading most of the time, otherwise my eyes glaze over and I just stare and 'read' the book.

It is about analytic philosophy and Wittgenstein's place in it after all.

P.M.S. Hacker, Wittgenstein's Place In Twentieth Century Analytic Philosophy.

This book is intense.