A little article I like re-reading

[dandan]

How Come You Know Everything But Do Nothing

If you let knowledge in yourself, put it into action.

blog.usejournal.com

One article I like re-reading - CLICK HERE

 

[Sensei]

There's much truth in this article. To be process-oriented instead of result-oriented is basically the road to recovery. However, what complicates matters is that if one's deeply depressed or suffers from mental illness, it can be very difficult to think rationally.

 

[Yomyom]

I wish I was knew this when I was ten years old, now it's too late for me but I always wondered about it.
Thanks for the information!

 

[a.n.kirillov]

There's much truth in this article. To be process-oriented instead of result-oriented is basically the road to recovery. However, what complicates matters is that if one's deeply depressed or suffers from mental illness, it can be very difficult to think rationally.

Interesting, I find my thinking becomes increasingly 'rational' or accurate, the more depressed I get. What a psychiatrist might call 'psychotic depression' I would term darwinian revelations—at my most depressed I see nature for what it really is: a slaughterhouse of organisms, fighting tooth and claw for survival, society an equilibrium of power struggle, humans as self interested beings without the ability for true altruism, my cat as a parasite, myself as a parasite of others, (western) civilization as the most brutal and exploitative oppressors thus far, the universe as a cold and indifferent clashing of physical forces without a reason or a cause. It is very frightening—but is it irrational?
.
Oh, objective morality as an illusion, which is one of the hardest to accept.

 

[MaybeSoon]

Interesting, I find my thinking becomes increasingly 'rational' or accurate, the more depressed I get. What a psychiatrist might call 'psychotic depression' I would term darwinian revelations—at my most depressed I see nature for what it really is: a slaughterhouse of organisms, fighting tooth and claw for survival, society an equilibrium of power struggle, humans as self interested beings without the ability for true altruism, my cat as a parasite, myself as a parasite of others, (western) civilization as the most brutal and exploitative oppressors thus far, the universe as a cold and indifferent clashing of physical forces without a reason or a cause. It is very frightening—but is it irrational?
.
Oh, objective morality as an illusion, which is one of the hardest to accept.

I don't think any of your post sounds irrational at all.

 

[Sensei]

Interesting, I find my thinking becomes increasingly 'rational' or accurate, the more depressed I get. What a psychiatrist might call 'psychotic depression' I would term darwinian revelations—at my most depressed I see nature for what it really is: a slaughterhouse of organisms, fighting tooth and claw for survival, society an equilibrium of power struggle, humans as self interested beings without the ability for true altruism, my cat as a parasite, myself as a parasite of others, (western) civilization as the most brutal and exploitative oppressors thus far, the universe as a cold and indifferent clashing of physical forces without a reason or a cause. It is very frightening—but is it irrational?
.
Oh, objective morality as an illusion, which is one of the hardest to accept.

Indeed, this is interesting! I periodically think irrationally due to my mental illness, I can tell that myself, but if we look at normal depressions, the line between rational and irrational thinking gets blurred. Since depression is classified as a mental health condition, it should by definiton entail irrational thinkning. However, if someone gets deeply depressed due to for instance the death of a family member, is that really irrational thinking? Is it irrational to think that life is painful and meaningless when you lose someone you love and realize how brief and transient our existence is? I've seen a theory postulating that depressed people actually see the world as it really is, and I think that there might be some truth to that.

 

[a.n.kirillov]

@Sensei

>>>Since depression is classified as a mental health condition, it should by definiton entail irrational thinkning

I don't agree with that at all, I think it is a power tactic to suppress disenfranchised people—not always, of course, but mostly.

'Sane' people, aka the masses, need to rationalize (their) life. One example of such an axiomatic rationalization would be "life is worth living". Nowadays, people who think (their) life is not worth living (anymore) are mostly labeled mentally ill and irrational. But whether or not a belief or an action is "rational" or rather reasonable depends upon value judgements. And if one of your axiomatic value judgements is, that life is worth living (under any circumstances or in general) then killing yourself would be irrational or unreasonable.

>>>However, if someone gets deeply depressed due to for instance the death of a family member, is that really irrational thinking?

No, of course not. Feelings are always valid, they cannot be 'false' or inappropriate. Calling someone's feelings 'irrational' is first of all a contradiction in terms, because feelings have no truth value in the first place (they aren't arguments or thoughts) and they don't adhere to the rules of logic; and second of all which feeling is 'appropriate' is simply a normative claim, made by a majority, or a minority—in this case a group with professional self interest: psychiatrists, psychologists and the pharmaceutical industry.

>>>I've seen a theory postulating that depressed people actually see the world as it really is, and I think that there might be some truth to that.

Yes, it's called depressive realism. Depressives assess their own performance, their level of influence upon the external world and their personal situation in general more accurately.
.
And by "more accurately" I mean drastically so. You should look it up on wikipedia.
.
I might have to add that I recently started rejecting the category "mental illness" entirely. There are some exceptions, for example if someone has a tumor in his amygdala and he starts malfunctioning, then that could be classified as a neurological problem or illness.

But "mental" illness, imho, does not exist or does not make sense as a category, unless you want to oppress people with it (Google: drapetomania, hysteria, homosexuality as psychopathology, etc)

 

[Sensei]

@Sensei

>>>Since depression is classified as a mental health condition, it should by definiton entail irrational thinkning

I don't agree with that at all, I think it is a power tactic to suppress disenfranchised people—not always, of course, but mostly.

'Sane' people, aka the masses, need to rationalize (their) life. One example of such an axiomatic rationalization would be "life is worth living". Nowadays, people who think (their) life is not worth living (anymore) are mostly labeled mentally ill and irrational. But whether or not a belief or an action is "rational" or rather reasonable depends upon value judgements. And if one of your axiomatic value judgements is, that life is worth living (under any circumstances or in general) then killing yourself would be irrational or unreasonable.

It's not really that simple, now is it? Depression is not just about suicidality. For instance, it's common that people suffering from depression think that nobody likes them although that's not the case, or they may feel that they don't deserve to live because of a shortcoming most people would regard as a trifle. That's not rational thinking.

There are many people in this very forum who are tormented by depression and want help. To claim that they are simply suppressed is basically to say that they only imagine their pain. You are absolutely not helping them by making such claims.

>>>However, if someone gets deeply depressed due to for instance the death of a family member, is that really irrational thinking?

No, of course not. Feelings are always valid, they cannot be 'false' or inappropriate. Calling someone's feelings 'irrational' is first of all a contradiction in terms, because feelings have no truth value in the first place (they aren't arguments or thoughts) and they don't adhere to the rules of logic; and second of all which feeling is 'appropriate' is simply a normative claim, made by a majority, or a minority—in this case a group with professional self interest: psychiatrists, psychologists and the pharmaceutical industry.

I think you muddle the waters when you start talking about feelings instead of thoughts. There's a reason thoughts and feelings are distinguished from each other. Be that as it may, feelings can absolute be irrational, with fear being a typical example.

>>>I've seen a theory postulating that depressed people actually see the world as it really is, and I think that there might be some truth to that.

Yes, it's called depressive realism. Depressives assess their own performance, their level of influence upon the external world and their personal situation in general more accurately.
.
And by "more accurately" I mean drastically so. You should look it up on wikipedia.

I had a look and it's indeed the theory I was thinking about. As pointed out in the article, it may be restricted to a few situations, though. I think the examples I provide above show that it can't be applied universally. If you think nobody likes you, when they in fact do that, than it's not realism.

 

[a.n.kirillov]

>>> it's common that people suffering from depression think that nobody likes them

Well that is difficult to empirically measure. For example, I have friends that would certainly answer yes if you asked them whether they like me or whether they would support me, etc ... but they don't always behave that way. They distance themselves from me, their body language or behaviour might suggest otherwise, their tone of voice might imply something totally different than the words they are saying.

>>> they may feel that they don't deserve to live

This is an even more difficult question, because it can not be answered. What does 'deserve to live' even mean? What authority decides who's lives are worth living and not worth living? Speculating, I would say this feeling usually arises with low societal status, which produces feelings of low self-worth, which are (at least dispositionally, evolutionarily, but still correctly even in civilized nations) totally justified in their negativity, because not being held in good esteem by your tribe/ family/ society means real, existential danger.

>>> who are tormented by depression and want help. To claim that they are simply suppressed

Their sentiments of disenfranchisement with, for example, unemployment, environmental catastrophe, discrimination, etc, are suppressed, or rather the critique these feelings could culminate in (for example through revolution, protest, civil rights movements, this forum (!) ) is, by claiming these people are mentally ill and the problem has it's root or cause inside their brain, or soul (psyche) instead of the society and world they live in.

>>> to say that they only imagine their pain

No, this is what more archaic societies have done and what many average people today still do, by saying "it is all in your head". Psychology also says "it is all in your head (or your nuclear family)", allthough it at least aknowledges the pain as real. I, on the other hand, am saying that your emotional reaction is accurate most of the time, your pain is real, your problem is real and most likely in the material, external world.

>>> I think you muddle the waters when you start talking about feelings instead of thoughts

Well, the distress is emotional, isn't it? Or do depressed people feel great? Aren't psychological problems mostly feeling problems? Anhedonia (not feeling pleasure), alexythymia (not feeling any emotions), mania (feeling to hyped, too much confidence), insomnia (feeling wound up and unable to sleep), etc... ?

>>> feelings can absolute be irrational, with fear being a typical example

I would ask you for an example, and you would probably say: fear of spiders, so phobias. But here again, if people have had very bad experiences with other human beings, calling them agarophobic and calling this fear irrational isn't an accurate description of what is going on. Most fears have a good reason, and all fears have a cause—for example evolutionary dispositions like fear of snakes. These are all normative, I will give you another example. Most people think preppers are irrational. But most honest scientists would agree that societal collapse within the next decades is very likely; still, people will call you crazy, a cook, irrational.

That feelings cannot be irrational was to say that they can not be 'false'. Only statements or conclusions can be false. Chronic pain serves no good function most of the time, but it is not 'false' because of that, it just is what it is. Feelings are also outside of moral judgements, so they can never be good or evil in a moral sense.

>>> If you think nobody likes you, when they in fact do that, than it's not realism.

Again, I would point to how we often say things but act in other ways. We say, for example, that we value honesty, justice, liberty, but take a look around you. Children say they 'love' their parents, but what does that actually mean? I would argue that our feelings often know more than what we understand with reason. If somebody is lying to you, it is often your feelings that give it away first, by observing body language, tone of voice and actual behaviour of the person.

Narcissistic abusers lovebomb their victims all the time. Societies always gas-light the most vulnerable subjects within them. etc. ..

 

[Sensei]

>>> it's common that people suffering from depression think that nobody likes them

Well that is difficult to empirically measure. For example, I have friends that would certainly answer yes if you asked them whether they like me or whether they would support me, etc ... but they don't always behave that way. They distance themselves from me, their body language or behaviour might suggest otherwise, their tone of voice might imply something totally different than the words they are saying.

First, a long caveat: I don't suffer from "normal" depression, but from bipolar depressive episodes. There are indications that they are worse than unipolar depressions; they are triggered by internal factors, i.e. brain chemistry, not external factors; they don't correlate with reality, i.e. I can get a depressive episode when life is fine and a hypomanic episode when life is hell. That said, bipolar depressive episodes share many symtptoms with unipolar depressions and I'm going to use myself as an example.

I wholeheartedly agree that it's difficult to meassure empirically, but I'd claim that it's not impossible. To use myself as an example, I remember one Friday evening back when I had something resembling a social life. I wanted to go out and do something fun, but nobody called me; being depressed, it was of course out of the question to call anyone myself. A normal person would probably think, "Maybe I should watch TV, because it seems nobody wants to go out tonight", but I thought something along the lines, "I'm forever alone and I'll have to kill myself." The next day there were angry messages on my answering machine demanding to know why the hell I didn't pick up the phone. It turned out that my SIM card had malfunctioned. Based on this, I can calculate that in that evening I thought that zero people would want to go out with me, when there in fact were three or something like that. It should be possible to measure social connections. If we should take it to the extreme, you could use thermal cameras or something similar to measure how people react when they meet each other.

>>> they may feel that they don't deserve to live

This is an even more difficult question, because it can not be answered. What does 'deserve to live' even mean? What authority decides who's lives are worth living and not worth living? Speculating, I would say this feeling usually arises with low societal status, which produces feelings of low self-worth, which are (at least dispositionally, evolutionarily, but still correctly even in civilized nations) totally justified in their negativity, because not being held in good esteem by your tribe/ family/ society means real, existential danger.

Again, I'll use myself as an example. When I have a depressive episode, I can literally think that I don't deserve to live because I'm not a good master for my pets. I feed them, I play with them, I pet them and so on, but I think that it's not enough and that I don't deserve to live. I think it will be very difficult to find anyone who thinks that this is not a proportional reaction by any means. I might be an extreme example, but this kind of disproportional reactions are not unusual for people who suffer from depression. I fail to see how that can be connected to societal structures.

Please don't misconstrue this as an ad hominem, but I'm curious, do you suffer from depression yourself?

>>> who are tormented by depression and want help. To claim that they are simply suppressed

Their sentiments of disenfranchisement with, for example, unemployment, environmental catastrophe, discrimination, etc, are suppressed, or rather the critique these feelings could culminate in (for example through revolution, protest, civil rights movements, this forum (!) ) is, by claiming these people are mentally ill and the problem has it's root or cause inside their brain, or soul (psyche) instead of the society and world they live in.

>>> to say that they only imagine their pain

No, this is what more archaic societies have done and what many average people today still do, by saying "it is all in your head". Psychology also says "it is all in your head (or your nuclear family)", allthough it at least aknowledges the pain as real. I, on the other hand, am saying that your emotional reaction is accurate most of the time, your pain is real, your problem is real and most likely in the material, external world.

So, they simply misinterpret how they feel? Perhaps more importantly, two thousand years of studies of mental health conditions and the research being carried out by thousands of psychologists and neurobiologists in dozens of countries around the world are misguided and/or a conspiracy? It seems you have come up with something truly unique no one has thought of before. I think I shall nominate you for the Nobel prize in medicine and join you in your quest to expose this global conspiracy.

>>> I think you muddle the waters when you start talking about feelings instead of thoughts

Well, the distress is emotional, isn't it? Or do depressed people feel great? Aren't psychological problems mostly feeling problems? Anhedonia (not feeling pleasure), alexythymia (not feeling any emotions), mania (feeling to hyped, too much confidence), insomnia (feeling wound up and unable to sleep), etc... ?

I was talking about irrational thinking. You seem to be talking about something else.

>>> feelings can absolute be irrational, with fear being a typical example

I would ask you for an example, and you would probably say: fear of spiders, so phobias. But here again, if people have had very bad experiences with other human beings, calling them agarophobic and calling this fear irrational isn't an accurate description of what is going on. Most fears have a good reason, and all fears have a cause—for example evolutionary dispositions like fear of snakes. These are all normative, I will give you another example. Most people think preppers are irrational. But most honest scientists would agree that societal collapse within the next decades is very likely; still, people will call you crazy, a cook, irrational.

Indeed, many fears, maybe all fears, serve a purpose. However, you can hardly claim that it's rational to feel or think that a small spider will harm you. Yes, there's the black widow etc., but in my country there are no such spiders and they are extremely unlikely to appear here.

That feelings cannot be irrational was to say that they can not be 'false'. Only statements or conclusions can be false. Chronic pain serves no good function most of the time, but it is not 'false' because of that, it just is what it is. Feelings are also outside of moral judgements, so they can never be good or evil in a moral sense.

I must say that this is starting to become very confusing. Would you mind clarifying this and explain what the connection to irrational thinking is?

>>> If you think nobody likes you, when they in fact do that, than it's not realism.

Again, I would point to how we often say things but act in other ways. We say, for example, that we value honesty, justice, liberty, but take a look around you. Children say they 'love' their parents, but what does that actually mean? I would argue that our feelings often know more than what we understand with reason. If somebody is lying to you, it is often your feelings that give it away first, by observing body language, tone of voice and actual behaviour of the person.

I fail to see what that has to do with the argument I put forth.

Narcissistic abusers lovebomb their victims all the time. Societies always gas-light the most vulnerable subjects within them. etc. ..

That much we can agree upon.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Interesting, I find my thinking becomes increasingly 'rational' or accurate, the more depressed I get. What a psychiatrist might call 'psychotic depression' I would term darwinian revelations—at my most depressed I see nature for what it really is: a slaughterhouse of organisms, fighting tooth and claw for survival, society an equilibrium of power struggle, humans as self interested beings without the ability for true altruism, my cat as a parasite, myself as a parasite of others, (western) civilization as the most brutal and exploitative oppressors thus far, the universe as a cold and indifferent clashing of physical forces without a reason or a cause. It is very frightening—but is it irrational?
.
Oh, objective morality as an illusion, which is one of the hardest to accept.

I really really really wish I disagreed with that.

 

[a.n.kirillov]

>>> they are triggered by internal factors, i.e. brain chemistry,
I have a problem with this narrative. Yes, the bad feelings might be a direct consequence of some neurotransmitter being released or not released, but why is the neurotransmitter released or not released?

>>> Again, I'll use myself as an example. When I have a depressive episode, I can literally think that I don't deserve to live because I'm not a good master for my pets. I feed them, I play with them, I pet them and so on, but I think that it's not enough and that I don't deserve to live. I think it will be very difficult to find anyone who thinks that this is not a proportional reaction by any means.

This is an example that I know from personal experience. But then again, I am behaving differntly towards my cat than I would if it could emote like a human being. I scare it off sometimes or yell at it, and afterwards I feel really bad for it. My question would be why are you constantly trying to measure your own sensibilities and reactions by comparing them with the sensibilities and reactions of others? Why don't you construe your feeling of guilt as a positive quality instead?

>>> . I fail to see how that can be connected to societal structures.

Simple: you feeling guilty for eating meat would have garnered you nothing but ridicule fourty years ago. Even today people make jokes about you for questioning this cultural practice of eating meat because you can sympathize with animals who are tortured and treated like dirt. Why should the majority of people be the measure of a reaction being appropriate?

>>> do you suffer from depression yourself?

That depends on what you think depression is. I certainly fit the DSM description of (atypical) chronic depression. But I don't see myself as ill. I would probably fit a whole host of PD diagnoses and anxiety diagnoses. Most people would.

>>> So, they simply misinterpret how they feel?

Where have I said that? How can you misinterpret how you feel? If I kick you in the nuts, do you have to interpret this feeling first before understanding that it hurts? You feel how you feel how you feel. Now, the reasons for w h y you feel how you feel is the point of discussion, and this is where it becomes a political issue.

>>> two thousand years of studies of mental health conditions and the research being carried out by thousands of psychologists and neurobiologists in dozens of countries around the world are misguided and/or a conspiracy?

Now I don't remember psychology being two thousand years old. AFAIK, psychology/ psychiatry are relatively young disciplines. Misguided, yes. A conspiracy, no. I'll just give you the example of drapetomania again, which was a psychiatric diagnosis of slaves that suddenly had the strong urge to run away from their farms. Or homosexuality, which was a psychiatric diagnosis until the late 1970s. Or hysteria, which somehow magically dissappeared with the rise of feminism. As a recent example, we have ADHD. Btw, why should the fact that a lot of people have studied something and created knowledge in a particular field of investigation imply that it is somehow legitimate? If this was true, should we take the scholastics serious again, who meticulously tried to logically prove the existance of god for thousands of years? Or what about alchemy?

I am not saying that psychology as a science is useless btw. It's function as an instrument of oppression and it's usefulness for other means aren't mutually exclusive. Psychology is useful in making people addicted to facebook, just to name one example.

>>> It seems you have come up with something truly unique no one has thought of before

As much as I would like to claim this—no. You could read Foucault, David Smail, Mark Fisher, Thomas Szasz, R.D. Laing—the mad in america podcast is a good one. Then sentiments like Jiddu Krishnamurtis have always rang true for me (It is no measure of health ... ).

>>> I was talking about irrational thinking. You seem to be talking about something else.

Okay, then I misunderstood you. Still I would argue that irrationality is the norm, and because it is so commonly accepted we usually don't notice it.

>>> Indeed, many fears, maybe all fears, serve a purpose. However, you can hardly claim that it's rational to feel or think that a small spider will harm you. Yes, there's the black widow etc., but in my country there are no such spiders and they are extremely unlikely to appear here.

>>> I must say that this is starting to become very confusing. Would you mind clarifying this and explain what the connection to irrational thinking is?

No connection to irrational thinking.

>>> I fail to see what that has to do with the argument I put forth.

You said it is not realism if people like you and you think they don't. Then let me ask you again, how would you know whether a) the feeling you are expressing by saying "people don't like me" is actually expressing what you are sensing as a threat or a problem, i.e. the cause of your distress? As if human relationships could be broken down into such simple concepts like either being "liked" or not being "liked"; b) people actually "like" you and not just pretend to like you because they have ulterior motives, because they want to be polite, etc etc
.
I'll give one more example. One of the most mystified topics in our culture is sexual competition/ the sexual market. You can see this by looking at our language: "true beauty comes from the inside", "personality is more important than looks", "what is on the inside counts", "you have to be polite/ a gentleman" etc etc. Now if you are exceptionally ugly, say a 2/10—members of the opposite sex will treat you with disinterest, because you have no value to them as a potential mate, and you will sense this, because your organism is a reproductive machine, and it reads these signals all the time. But there will be an obvious disconnect between your rational mind, which has been fed illusions and lives in a civilized world, where one doesn't show his disdain openly—and you live within a world of myths and illusions about sexual competition (and not just that, but also about nature, status, wealth, power in general), so there will be enormous cognitive dissonance. People will never admit to you that they find you ugly or that they are repulsed by you, not even a psychologist will. But you will sense that they are in fact acting as if they are repulsed.

Do you understand what I'm trying to explain? I realize I'm doing a bad job of it right now :-/

In this scenario, if you say "I feel that people don't like me"—would you be correct?

 

[Eridanos]

I overall liked the article although it seems to me it's far too simplistic. It's great for getting out the idea in your head and having you think about it but I think it's too simplistic of an article: it basically ends with a "just feel good duh". Maybe that's just the article format's fault, far too short to really have a good analysis of the issue.

Anyway thanks for sharing it, I'm glad I've read it

 

[Sensei]

>>> they are triggered by internal factors, i.e. brain chemistry,
I have a problem with this narrative. Yes, the bad feelings might be a direct consequence of some neurotransmitter being released or not released, but why is the neurotransmitter released or not released?

I see what you're aiming at here. When it comes to bipolar disorder, there's usually no disernable trigger, but let's say for the sake of argument that there are always is some trigger which is subtle in nature. Then it means that something very subtle triggers a totally unproportional emotional response which can last for months, lead to much suffering, and be very debilitating. No matter how you put it, it's an illness and it doesn't correlate to the nature of contemporary society. Notice that bipolar disorder has existed for at least two thousands years, possibly since the dawn of man, when society was considerable less stressful, superficial, controlled, and what have you. The same goes for severe depressions. I'm not saying that the nature of contemporary society can't affect, amplify and not seldom induce mental health conditions, because I'm sure it can, but I'm not buying that all mental health coniditions solely are products of the society we live in. Also, notice that gene sequences which increase the risk of developing bipolar disorder, and sometimes also major depressive disorder, can and often are inherited, and society can hardly be blamed for genetic heritage, especially since these mental health conditions have existed for thousands of years.

>>> Again, I'll use myself as an example. When I have a depressive episode, I can literally think that I don't deserve to live because I'm not a good master for my pets. I feed them, I play with them, I pet them and so on, but I think that it's not enough and that I don't deserve to live. I think it will be very difficult to find anyone who thinks that this is not a proportional reaction by any means.

This is an example that I know from personal experience. But then again, I am behaving differntly towards my cat than I would if it could emote like a human being. I scare it off sometimes or yell at it, and afterwards I feel really bad for it. My question would be why are you constantly trying to measure your own sensibilities and reactions by comparing them with the sensibilities and reactions of others? Why don't you construe your feeling of guilt as a positive quality instead?

I do not compare myself with others when I feel that I'm a bad master to my pets. I empathize with them and wish I could do more for them. The thought that I don't deserve to live because of this is and remains unproportional and thus irrational.

>>> . I fail to see how that can be connected to societal structures.

Simple: you feeling guilty for eating meat would have garnered you nothing but ridicule fourty years ago. Even today people make jokes about you for questioning this cultural practice of eating meat because you can sympathize with animals who are tortured and treated like dirt. Why should the majority of people be the measure of a reaction being appropriate?

This doesn't change the fact that the reaction is unproportional.

>>> do you suffer from depression yourself?

That depends on what you think depression is. I certainly fit the DSM description of (atypical) chronic depression. But I don't see myself as ill. I would probably fit a whole host of PD diagnoses and anxiety diagnoses. Most people would.

The problem is that many of us suffer and get debilitated by our mental health conditions and get help from psychotherapy and medication. (In my case, only medication, just to make that clear.) When it comes to bipolar disorder a plethora of treatments have been tried throughout at least two thousand years, including exercise, gymnastics, fresh air, crafts, arts, hashish, opium, psychoanalysis, relaxing environments, prayers, floggings, exorcism, lobotomy, various drugs and machines, but the only thing which has worked is modern medication. Believe me, I've tried everything myself. I honestly wish that you could offer a miracle cure.

>>> So, they simply misinterpret how they feel?

Where have I said that? How can you misinterpret how you feel? If I kick you in the nuts, do you have to interpret this feeling first before understanding that it hurts? You feel how you feel how you feel. Now, the reasons for w h y you feel how you feel is the point of discussion, and this is where it becomes a political issue.

Alright, now I know where you're coming from. I thought you were one of those types who claim that there are no mental illnesses. Sorry.

>>> two thousand years of studies of mental health conditions and the research being carried out by thousands of psychologists and neurobiologists in dozens of countries around the world are misguided and/or a conspiracy?

Now I don't remember psychology being two thousand years old. AFAIK, psychology/ psychiatry are relatively young disciplines. Misguided, yes. A conspiracy, no. I'll just give you the example of drapetomania again, which was a psychiatric diagnosis of slaves that suddenly had the strong urge to run away from their farms. Or homosexuality, which was a psychiatric diagnosis until the late 1970s. Or hysteria, which somehow magically dissappeared with the rise of feminism. As a recent example, we have ADHD. Btw, why should the fact that a lot of people have studied something and created knowledge in a particular field of investigation imply that it is somehow legitimate? If this was true, should we take the scholastics serious again, who meticulously tried to logically prove the existance of god for thousands of years? Or what about alchemy?

I am not saying that psychology as a science is useless btw. It's function as an instrument of oppression and it's usefulness for other means aren't mutually exclusive. Psychology is useful in making people addicted to facebook, just to name one example.

If you read what I actually wrote, I've never claimed that psychology as a science is two thousand years old. What I wrote is that mental health conditions have been studied for two thousand years. The symptoms have been observed and documented for two millennia. Society has changed, but the symptoms haven't, something which I think disproves your theory that everything can be explained as products of society. (Unless I've mistunderstood you.)

Drapetomania is a moot point. The idea was ridiculed even back then and never gained support. As for homosexuality, I hope you will accept that I don't want to open that can of worms. Hysteria is definitely a product of it's time, but it doesn't make it less real. Anorexia nervosa was very rare before the 1980s, but is common in our times. However, it has the highest mortality rate of all mental health conditions and can't just simply be dismissed as a fad. Even if it's a product of our time, the suffering is real, and it was real for women suffering from hysteria too. Anoxeria nervosa and hysteria are interesting, because they are arguably mental health conditions that are induced by society as I mentioned above and in line with your thinking. One can argue that the propensity to develop these disorders are separate from society, but I think it's safe to say that individuals most likely never would develop these disorders if it weren't for negative societal pressure and norms. (You see, we agree on some points. ;) )

Pshychology is a questionable science since it, for obvious reasons, is difficult to quantify the human mind. Still, it's all we got. To just dismiss psychology as an instrument of oppression and to not separate psychiatric care from marketing methods is absurd. Do you honestly think that psychiatric care has been concieved by evil minds and that all psychologists and psychiatrists are sadists or unwitting tools? Psychology has many shortcomings and its fair share of unempathetic and unintelligent people, and psychiatric care systems are definitely dysfunctional in many countries, but to categorically say that it's all evil is incredibly categorical.

I think a reason that we disagree on this is that we have very different experiences of psychiatric care. I would guess that your experience is very negative. Allow me to share my experience. Without any exaggeration whatsoever, I can say that 4 out of 5 psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses I've met (I've never talked to a psychologist) are among the most compassionate and respectful people I've met in my life. They have never forced me to anything. Once when I was highly suicidal they asked me if I it wouldn't be better if I stayed in the ward over night, I respectfully declined and they accepted that. I've told them about my suicidality and even discussed methods, and although it has made them nervous, they have focused on how to help me avoid suicide and never been judgemental or tried to section me. They accept and respect that I'm sometimes better read up than they are and that I use unconventional methods of self-treatment, including that I frequent a suicide forum. (No, I haven't mentioned that it's this forum, just that it's a "suicide forum".) They discuss my medication with me and if I want to change something, we change it. Now you tell me that they want to oppress me and manipulate me? Can you see why I, based on my experience, find your categorical dismissal absurd?

>>> It seems you have come up with something truly unique no one has thought of before

As much as I would like to claim this—no. You could read Foucault, David Smail, Mark Fisher, Thomas Szasz, R.D. Laing—the mad in america podcast is a good one. Then sentiments like Jiddu Krishnamurtis have always rang true for me (It is no measure of health ... ).

I don't deny for a second that there are many valid ways of approaching the human mind. I have for instance started experimenting with hallucinogens to see if they can help me.

>>> I fail to see what that has to do with the argument I put forth.

You said it is not realism if people like you and you think they don't. Then let me ask you again, how would you know whether a) the feeling you are expressing by saying "people don't like me" is actually expressing what you are sensing as a threat or a problem, i.e. the cause of your distress? As if human relationships could be broken down into such simple concepts like either being "liked" or not being "liked"; b) people actually "like" you and not just pretend to like you because they have ulterior motives, because they want to be polite, etc etc
.
I'll give one more example. One of the most mystified topics in our culture is sexual competition/ the sexual market. You can see this by looking at our language: "true beauty comes from the inside", "personality is more important than looks", "what is on the inside counts", "you have to be polite/ a gentleman" etc etc. Now if you are exceptionally ugly, say a 2/10—members of the opposite sex will treat you with disinterest, because you have no value to them as a potential mate, and you will sense this, because your organism is a reproductive machine, and it reads these signals all the time. But there will be an obvious disconnect between your rational mind, which has been fed illusions and lives in a civilized world, where one doesn't show his disdain openly—and you live within a world of myths and illusions about sexual competition (and not just that, but also about nature, status, wealth, power in general), so there will be enormous cognitive dissonance. People will never admit to you that they find you ugly or that they are repulsed by you, not even a psychologist will. But you will sense that they are in fact acting as if they are repulsed.

Do you understand what I'm trying to explain? I realize I'm doing a bad job of it right now :-/

In this scenario, if you say "I feel that people don't like me"—would you be correct?

I understand you and you're not doing a bad job at all. I admit my example was bad, and you argue well for how difficult it is quantify something like that. Maybe it's somewhat beside the point as we're mainly focusing on regular depressions here, but we can take a look at depressive psychoses. A common theme is feelings of persecution. Although it's also difficult to quanitify, I'd say it's easier to evaluate that, as it should possible to determine if people actually persecute the person in question.

I fear that I might come through as too dismissive here. I believe our opinions aren't that far from each other.

First, I believe that mental health conditions may be affected, amplified and not seldom even induced by society. A typical example of a mental health condition induced by society could be a depression over being unemployed and isolated. I do not believe that all mental health conditions can be explained solely by societal factors, though.

Second, I believe that unconventional thinking often is labeled irrational due to societal norms. The line between healthy pessimism and unhealthy depression can be thin or non-existent. The notion that life is misery is usually dismissed as overly negative, even though it's easy to support it with logical arguments. Political opinions which question the status quo are usually dismissed as unrealistic or utopian. A "mad" artist or scientist may be recognized as a genius later on. I do not believe that people suffering from all health conditions always are some kind of dissidents who simply think differently from the majority, though.

 

[a.n.kirillov]

@Sensei

>>> I believe our opinions aren't that far from each other.

I agree. Earlier in the conversation you said that:

>>> It's not really that simple, now is it?

And it really isn't all that simple. I think I went from embracing psychology for many years (I have done a fair amount of amateur study of it) to totally rejecting it after growing more and more disillusioned with it. Maybe this is a thesis, antithesis, synthesis thing and I will have to come to a more balanced viewpoint; you have a balanced viewpoint when you state it like this:

First, I believe that mental health conditions may be affected, amplified and not seldom even induced by society. A typical example of a mental health condition induced by society could be a depression over being unemployed and isolated. I do not believe that all mental health conditions can be explained solely by societal factors, though.

Second, I believe that unconventional thinking often is labeled irrational due to societal norms. The line between healthy pessimism and unhealthy depression can be thin or non-existent. The notion that life is misery is usually dismissed as overly negative, even though it's easy to support it with logical arguments. Political opinions which question the status quo are usually dismissed as unrealistic or utopian. A "mad" artist or scientist may be recognized as a genius later on. I do not believe that people suffering from all health conditions always are some kind of dissidents who simply think differently from the majority, though

I also derailed the conversation where there was absolutely no need to. It haunted me yesterday and I think I can see how I took a valid critique of psychiatry/ psychogy and applied it too generally.

I think a reason that we disagree on this is that we have very different experiences of psychiatric care. I would guess that your experience is very negative. Allow me to share my experience. Without any exaggeration whatsoever, I can say that 4 out of 5 psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses I've met (I've never talked to a psychologist) are among the most compassionate and respectful people I've met in my life. They have never forced me to anything. Once when I was highly suicidal they asked me if I it wouldn't be better if I stayed in the ward over night, I respectfully declined and they accepted that. I've told them about my suicidality and even discussed methods, and although it has made them nervous, they have focused on how to help me avoid suicide and never been judgemental or tried to section me. They accept and respect that I'm sometimes better read up than they are and that I use unconventional methods of self-treatment, including that I frequent a suicide forum. (No, I haven't mentioned that it's this forum, just that it's a "suicide forum".) They discuss my medication with me and if I want to change something, we change it. Now you tell me that they want to oppress me and manipulate me? Can you see why I, based on my experience, find your categorical dismissal absurd?

Indeed, I can see now how you arrived at your opinion and why we differ so drastically; my experience with the medical profession has been very negative throughout my life. If I had psychiatrists (or doctors) like yours, who treat me as an equal and not as a criminal, a nuisance or an opportunity for a quick buck, then I would maybe be less critical.

>>> Do you honestly think that psychiatric care has been concieved by evil minds and that all psychologists and psychiatrists are sadists or unwitting tools?

No, not at all. Some mechanisms of oppression are blind and they establish themselves organically. Think of the bureaucracy surrounding unemployment for example, which is a mechanism of oppression without an evil mind having planned it. The people working in job centres also aren't evil, they are just doing their job, and neither are the politicians and lawyers who designed the system.

>>> A common theme is feelings of persecution. Although it's also difficult to quanitify, I'd say it's easier to evaluate that, as it should possible to determine if people actually persecute the person in question.

That's a good example, and I agree that we should label some thought patterns and behaviours as problematic. But on the other hand, we must also take seriously the person's feeling of persecution instead of simply dismissing it as a broken brain or madness—R.D. Laing dealt with schizophrenics that way—and instead try to see where this feeling might have it's origin; what is there in the person's life or history that could prompt the feeling of being persecuted? so, for example, he could be very isolated and lonely and the feeling of persecution could be an attempt to compensate for this, etc ...

>>> who claim that there are no mental illnesses

I honestly don't know where I stand with this yet. But the phenomena are happening, I won't deny that. My first rule is this: that I will always take what a person says at face value and believe their description of their inner world is more accurate than mine—and it is exactly this approach that is missing in many psychiatrists and psychologists, and if course the general public ("snap out of it", "seeking attention", ...).

>>>I'm not saying that the nature of contemporary society can't affect, amplify and not seldom induce mental health conditions, because I'm sure it can, but I'm not buying that all mental health coniditions solely are products of the society we live in.

Maybe I have said the word "society" one too many times. I am a hardcore pessimist about life and I truly believe that the assumption that good mental health is the ought-state of a human brain in this world is absurd in itself. Somewhat polemically I would even go so far as to say, that being able to sleep well and have a clean conscience as a human being is an indication of mental illness ... love, hope, youth, intoxication, euphoria, optimism—these are all states not of a clear mind, will you agree on that?

Thanks, I enjoyed talking to you and you reminding me that all that I know is that I don't know.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

@Sensei @a.n.kirillov I really enjoyed your discussion, it's given me some things to think about. Thank-you.

 

[Sensei]

And it really isn't all that simple. I think I went from embracing psychology for many years (I have done a fair amount of amateur study of it) to totally rejecting it after growing more and more disillusioned with it. Maybe this is a thesis, antithesis, synthesis thing and I will have to come to a more balanced viewpoint; you have a balanced viewpoint when you state it like this:

@a.n.kirillov

Interesting. We are kindred spirits when it comes to this approach. Just like you, I think in terms of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis whenever I engage in a discussion. If the result of the discussion isn't a synthesis, it has arguably been meaningless. Nothing new has come out of it and nothing new has been learned. I spent many years discussing politics online, and I always found it fascinating and inspiring whenever I and a political opponent, and then I really mean opponent, managed to find common ground.

A balanced viewpoint is not always desirable, as some axioms have to be accepted in my opinion, but when it comes to something as complex and enigmatic as the human mind, I think it's necessary.

I also derailed the conversation where there was absolutely no need to. It haunted me yesterday and I think I can see how I took a valid critique of psychiatry/ psychogy and applied it too generally.

Actually, I can honestly say that I found your digressions interesting and that they added new perspectives to the topics at hand. The reason I reacted negatively, and possibly rudely, is that I've met all too many people who purposefully derail discussions to "win" them. Now that I know where you're coming from, I want to apologize to you if you found my behaviour rude.

Indeed, I can see now how you arrived at your opinion and why we differ so drastically; my experience with the medical profession has been very negative throughout my life. If I had psychiatrists (or doctors) like yours, who treat me as an equal and not as a criminal, a nuisance or an opportunity for a quick buck, then I would maybe be less critical.

I forgot to mention that we also have a so-called high-cost roof, so I never have to pay more than about $300 a year for apointments and medicines. I want to stress that it's far from a perfect system, though. There's incompetence, mistreatment, and abuse just as in every other psychiatric care system. It works as a whole and I seldom hear people complain about it, though.

>>> Do you honestly think that psychiatric care has been concieved by evil minds and that all psychologists and psychiatrists are sadists or unwitting tools?

No, not at all. Some mechanisms of oppression are blind and they establish themselves organically. Think of the bureaucracy surrounding unemployment for example, which is a mechanism of oppression without an evil mind having planned it. The people working in job centres also aren't evil, they are just doing their job, and neither are the politicians and lawyers who designed the system.

I'm buying that idea. I come to think of Bordieu's field theory, which you might have heard of. In my crude and botched-up interpretation of it, a field is a system which isn't governed by leaders or doctrines, but "subconsciously" constructed and driven by individuals with similar values and goals. I think this theory is particularly useful when dissecting capitalism.

That said, I don't agree completely with you, and that's because I think that a larger percentage of inidividuals within healthcare systems, in which I include psychiatric care, are driven by compassion than in for instance business and law enforcement. They must inevitably influence the system in a positive way, although one may discuss to what degree.

That said, again, I think it's sound to question psychology and psychiatry. If one studies these disciplines in depth, it becomes clear, at least in my opinion, that it's basically educated guesswork, may it concern neurobiology, eitology, symptomatology, or diagnosis. To really try to understand how the human brain work is like trying to find and repair millimeter-sized components in a clock that covers a square kilometer. It's what we've got, though. I think what Winston Churchill had to say about democracy applies to psychology and psychiatry as well: "Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

>>> A common theme is feelings of persecution. Although it's also difficult to quanitify, I'd say it's easier to evaluate that, as it should possible to determine if people actually persecute the person in question.

That's a good example, and I agree that we should label some thought patterns and behaviours as problematic. But on the other hand, we must also take seriously the person's feeling of persecution instead of simply dismissing it as a broken brain or madness—R.D. Laing dealt with schizophrenics that way—and instead try to see where this feeling might have it's origin; what is there in the person's life or history that could prompt the feeling of being persecuted? so, for example, he could be very isolated and lonely and the feeling of persecution could be an attempt to compensate for this, etc ...

A good point which I tend to forget when I try to protect people suffering from mental health conditions. By emphasizing that a mental health condition produces, simplified, atypical thought patterns which cause immense suffering and often also disability, it's often easier for the average Joe and average Jane to understand that it's not simply a question of being down, being shy, having a vivid imagination, and so on. If I look to myself, when I told a person that I'm bipolar, I got the reply, "we all have ups and downs". I could only make this person understand the severity of my situation by giving examples of how irrational my thinking can be at times. This may be misguided and I need to give it more thought.

This question becomes immensely complicated in this rare kind of community. I think that almost all people would agree that a person having schizophrenic hallucinations and delusions is not thinking rationally and shouldn't commit suicide. I think many people would agree that I'm not thinking fully rationally and shouldn't commit suicide while I have a depressive episode, as I think about the consquences my suicide would have on other people the rest of the year, but not during this limited time period. (I have to admit that I'm a hypocrite, beacause I'm thinking of deciding beforehand that I won't resist my suicidal impulses when my next depressive episode comes, as I don't feel any fear of death whatsoever when I have one.) Then it becomes considerably more difficult. When do you become so depressed that you're thinking no longer can be said to be rational? You may say never, whereas others may say as soon as you show symptoms of depression. I guess it comes down to this: most people would probably agree that one shouldn't commit suicide when one's not thinking rationally, but there's not total consensus on what irrational thinking really is and under what circumstances one think irrationally. I say better safe than sorry, but there are others here who are of a different opinion, and I can't say that they're wrong, because there are given answers. Sorry, I'm rambling now, but I hope I manage to get my point through.

>>> who claim that there are no mental illnesses

I honestly don't know where I stand with this yet. But the phenomena are happening, I won't deny that. My first rule is this: that I will always take what a person says at face value and believe their description of their inner world is more accurate than mine—and it is exactly this approach that is missing in many psychiatrists and psychologists, and if course the general public ("snap out of it", "seeking attention", ...).

I'd say that depends on what mental health condition we're talking about. I think it's a most sensible way of approaching someone who is depressed. However, I'd say it can be a dangerous and destuctive way to approach someone suffering from schizophrenia. Both psychiatric nurses and many schizophrenics are of the opinion that hallucinations and delusions shouldn't be encouraged by acknowledging them, as it makes it more difficult to distinguish them from reality.

>>>I'm not saying that the nature of contemporary society can't affect, amplify and not seldom induce mental health conditions, because I'm sure it can, but I'm not buying that all mental health coniditions solely are products of the society we live in.

Maybe I have said the word "society" one too many times. I am a hardcore pessimist about life and I truly believe that the assumption that good mental health is the ought-state of a human brain in this world is absurd in itself. Somewhat polemically I would even go so far as to say, that being able to sleep well and have a clean conscience as a human being is an indication of mental illness ... love, hope, youth, intoxication, euphoria, optimism—these are all states not of a clear mind, will you agree on that?

I'd have to give it more thought to give an answer worthy your question. I will say this much, though: it's difficult, not to say impossible, to argue against your standpoint. It's a fully logical and valid interpretation of reality and I wholeheartedly respect it.

Thanks, I enjoyed talking to you and you reminding me that all that I know is that I don't know.

Likewise. I'd like to think that I've come to the same conclusion. If fewer people were sure that they really understand the world, I think it would be a better world.

 

[a.n.kirillov]

Hey @Sensei , I was just reminded of you while reading Schopenhauer. I'll just try to make a crappy translation of the passage:

»Compassion with animals so closely lines up with quality of character, that we can safely say that a person who commits acts of cruelty against animals can not be a good person. (...)this is why very sensitive people, reminiscing how they, in a bad mood or a rage, unjustly or in an unnecessarily harsh manner mistreated their dog, their horse, their monkey, will feel the same remorse, the same dissatisfaction with themselves, that is commonly felt when remembering an injustice that one has committed against a fellow human being, where it is called the voice of conscience.«

 

[262653]

The article reminds me of "doers" who state with certainty that they flawlessly understand the intricate workings (related to doing stuff) not only of their own mind and body, but those of others too. It also reminds me of psychoactive drugs that seem to help some people but not others... I still don't know what are the major contributors to our decision on whether we do things or not. From personal experience I can say that it was during strong emotional distress that I went for big changes. Like a fear of a rare opportunity missed... Also from personal experience I can tell that emotions can arise in response to imagined events and conditions.

You probably see where I'm going with this. I conclude that our imagination can influence the outcome of our decisions (no shit). Still have to figure out in which way, and how to put this to practice. Practice might be one of the solutions here. There's a concept in neural networking... I forgot how it's called... Ok, there's a better analogy. Artillery fire. Shooting, measurement, subsequent correction/adjustment, repeat the process. Input-->Output-->Input-->Output-->...

The step two sounds like a good advice to me, the reduction part at least.

 

[Somberly_]

@Sensei
@a.n.kirillov

I also really enjoyed reading your two's discussion. Thank you for sharing both your thoughts and its given me a lot to think about in both good and bad ways. The only comment I have is about this portion and about the argument of whether "mental health issues" are actually really a failure of a person's mind....

Interesting, I find my thinking becomes increasingly 'rational' or accurate, the more depressed I get. What a psychiatrist might call 'psychotic depression' I would term darwinian revelations—at my most depressed I see nature for what it really is: a slaughterhouse of organisms, fighting tooth and claw for survival, society an equilibrium of power struggle, humans as self interested beings without the ability for true altruism, my cat as a parasite, myself as a parasite of others, (western) civilization as the most brutal and exploitative oppressors thus far, the universe as a cold and indifferent clashing of physical forces without a reason or a cause. It is very frightening—but is it irrational?
.
Oh, objective morality as an illusion, which is one of the hardest to accept.

That quote scares me a bit with how easily I can relate to it, and just how cold and harsh my thinking is when I'm personally having a "darwinian revelation". To be honest, I still find the world to be beautiful even when I see it in that light, an uncaring slaughterhouse. Not sure what that means about me.

I think your perspective throughout the conversation is interesting. While obviously most people are going to see someone suffering from depression or mania or a psychotic episode as being absolutely "not in their right mind", you have some fair points in that they aren't always necessarily irrational. A lot of human society is based around things that are not very logical, and they often treat it as perfectly normal. Anything outside the norms of society and custom is treated as something that is broken and needs addressing, rather than just being a different way of thinking or living. But the part that I'd like to bring up is, that despite a person being absolutely logical and coherent and lucid, I still feel that missing those other common elements of a 'normal' mind can definitely be considered a state of brokenness. I think I am not nearly as well read as you two, so I may be basing my logic off outdated science, but the way Ive always viewed the human mind is in three levels:

The instinctual brain: raw instinct and unconscious reaction to stimuli. A central nervous system or some form of automated control system for surviving in their environment. This is the part that doesn't really go through much of a thought process, it just reacts to stimuli in a programmed way. It's important that it is fast, because reacting to threats quickly in nature is life or death. You don't have time to think about whether

The emotional brain: the advancement of the brain to become bigger and have more complex systems than just reactions to primal desires. I think this development happens mostly from the evolution of social bonds within a species, like animals hunting in packs or mating rituals. Being able to make the right actions in response to a complex gathering of 7 other creatures of your species requires a much more advanced system, and introduces emotion to dictate them. This builds off of the instinctual brain and allows some systems to better equip the animal to do well in his society and reproduce before dying.

The thinking brain: the more recent development in our evolution of being able to form abstract thoughts and form responses to things that aren't currently perceptible? This one is harder for me to define since it is just so incredibly complex. You the reader, are able to understand and think about the fact that you are reading another human's thoughts on a complex communication system on a man-made device powered by metal charged with electricity right now. There's a million different avenues of thought your mind could go down at every step of every idea of what is occurring for every object in your immediate vicinity, and likely 95% of those thoughts are not related to you surviving and reproducing.

Back to the point... So humanity got to this point in time through thousands of years of evolution from a ball of cells to a complex multi-faceted creature. All along the way, development of the human mind was very gradual and each part formed in unison with the existence of the other parts, so that they have feedback and communication between their respective regions in the brain. I think that if any part of the mind isn't functioning as 'normal', then its definitely in a state of brokenness. And that's not to say that that you aren't functional or can't go through life with some parts not working quite how they usually do, but they definitely hinder you. So while I regard a "darwinian revelation" as a state when the logical part of the mind is still going strong, it likely is breaking down in other areas like emotion. Same for any other identifiable disorder or irregular reaction brought up here earlier. Your perspective in those states of mind is still valid in my opinion, but that deviation from the normal ebb and flow of 'normal' societies reaction to the same situation is likely causing you troubles. That doesn't make it any less frustrating when 'normal' people have very strong (and incorrect) opinions about how you should think, how you should act, or whether you are even correct about your own feelings at all. But I think if somehow we knew every exact detail about how every neuron and chemical in the brain is interacting without the guesswork and un-provable theories, there is probably a definable flaw in the brain that is making your thoughts and actions unusual.

I feel like I'm rambling a bit here, sorry if my point seems a bit vague. I think that the 'normal' people calling us broken are technically correct, in a evolutionary/survival sense. Whether its a good or bad thing to not be normal is a complicated conversation though. I often worry just how broken my thinking is if some of my mind isn't working as designed, and that I can't approach the question objectively because of it.

 

[Sensei]

Hey @Sensei , I was just reminded of you while reading Schopenhauer. I'll just try to make a crappy translation of the passage:

»Compassion with animals so closely lines up with quality of character, that we can safely say that a person who commits acts of cruelty against animals can not be a good person. (...)this is why very sensitive people, reminiscing how they, in a bad mood or a rage, unjustly or in an unnecessarily harsh manner mistreated their dog, their horse, their monkey, will feel the same remorse, the same dissatisfaction with themselves, that is commonly felt when remembering an injustice that one has committed against a fellow human being, where it is called the voice of conscience.«

That's like poetry to me and rings very true. That reminds me that I need to pet my cats now. :)

 

[a.n.kirillov]

o

That's like poetry to me and rings very true. That reminds me that I need to pet my cats now. :)

Thanks, but it probably doesn't live up to a quality translation.

I had to isolate my cat from my living quarters recently, since he has an insane amount of ticks this year; today I woke up with a tick taking a stroll up my stomach D-: