Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is about the November 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide by Gustavo Kinrys, MD


The authors are discussing various methods to relieve from stress. And that is important to many people because many are suffering from mental stress.

But is stress such a bad thing to get rid of as soon as possible? Think about your own self. Did stress made you less productive or more productive?

[LuckyR]

You are correct, the term "stress", is lazy shorthand for "too much stress". So, yes small amounts of stress are a good thing.

[stevie]

This topic is about the November 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide by Gustavo Kinrys, MD


The authors are discussing various methods to relieve from stress. And that is important to many people because many are suffering from mental stress.

But is stress such a bad thing to get rid of as soon as possible? Think about your own self. Did stress made you less productive or more productive?

I think that cannot be assessed on the general level you are suggesting. Of course it is beneficial to acquire methods to relieve from stress even if not all kinds and degrees of stress as such are disadvantageous. It is beneficial because there are kinds and degrees of stress that are disadvantageous.

[Sushan]

You are correct, the term "stress", is lazy shorthand for "too much stress". So, yes small amounts of stress are a good thing.

Yes, stress is a more general term and for a deep discussion I think it has to be quantified correctly. But as per my experience the issue is not the amount of stress, but the time that you are exposed to it. Short term stress can be really productive though one is overwhelmed by it. At the same time even a small amount of stress can be harmful when one is exposed to it for a long time.

[LuckyR]

You are correct, the term "stress", is lazy shorthand for "too much stress". So, yes small amounts of stress are a good thing.

Yes, stress is a more general term and for a deep discussion I think it has to be quantified correctly. But as per my experience the issue is not the amount of stress, but the time that you are exposed to it. Short term stress can be really productive though one is overwhelmed by it. At the same time even a small amount of stress can be harmful when one is exposed to it for a long time.

IMO there is such a thing as too much volume and too much duration.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the November 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide by Gustavo Kinrys, MD


The authors are discussing various methods to relieve from stress. And that is important to many people because many are suffering from mental stress.

But is stress such a bad thing to get rid of as soon as possible? Think about your own self. Did stress made you less productive or more productive?

I think that cannot be assessed on the general level you are suggesting. Of course it is beneficial to acquire methods to relieve from stress even if not all kinds and degrees of stress as such are disadvantageous. It is beneficial because there are kinds and degrees of stress that are disadvantageous.

Stress can be the only driving force for someone. I think we all have experienced it in various levels, including facing an exam, asking out a girl, finishing a job, etc. If one misdiagnose his/her stress as an issue and try to get relieved from that, that driving force may be gone and the efficiency will drop. I think self understanding of harmful stress levels is more important, and then only it is good to apply the methods for relief.

[Sushan]

You are correct, the term "stress", is lazy shorthand for "too much stress". So, yes small amounts of stress are a good thing.

Yes, stress is a more general term and for a deep discussion I think it has to be quantified correctly. But as per my experience the issue is not the amount of stress, but the time that you are exposed to it. Short term stress can be really productive though one is overwhelmed by it. At the same time even a small amount of stress can be harmful when one is exposed to it for a long time.

IMO there is such a thing as too much volume and too much duration.

I agree. Both components are there. But what is having more potential to break someone? I think most of people can tolerate immense stress for a short time rather than tolerating relatively low levels of stress for a longer duration. Depression can be found in people who are exposed to low stress levels for a long duration, but not in people who experience stress from time to time.

[LuckyR]

You are correct, the term "stress", is lazy shorthand for "too much stress". So, yes small amounts of stress are a good thing.

Yes, stress is a more general term and for a deep discussion I think it has to be quantified correctly. But as per my experience the issue is not the amount of stress, but the time that you are exposed to it. Short term stress can be really productive though one is overwhelmed by it. At the same time even a small amount of stress can be harmful when one is exposed to it for a long time.

IMO there is such a thing as too much volume and too much duration.

I agree. Both components are there. But what is having more potential to break someone? I think most of people can tolerate immense stress for a short time rather than tolerating relatively low levels of stress for a longer duration. Depression can be found in people who are exposed to low stress levels for a long duration, but not in people who experience stress from time to time.

Well sadness is commonly caused by sad situations, which are by definition typically stressful. Depression is classically cause by neurochemical imbalance.

[Sculptor1]

Well sadness is commonly caused by sad situations, which are by definition typically stressful. Depression is classically cause by neurochemical imbalance.

No. Depression IS a chemical imbalance.

It can be triggered by adverse circumstances, or other conditions.
You might was well say that the chemical imbalance is caused by depression as the other way round.
Its really about perspective.

[LuckyR]

Well sadness is commonly caused by sad situations, which are by definition typically stressful. Depression is classically cause by neurochemical imbalance.

No. Depression IS a chemical imbalance.

It can be triggered by adverse circumstances, or other conditions.
You might was well say that the chemical imbalance is caused by depression as the other way round.
Its really about perspective.

Funny how one can start a comment with No and basically repeat what was previously stated.

[Sculptor1]

Well sadness is commonly caused by sad situations, which are by definition typically stressful. Depression is classically cause by neurochemical imbalance.

No. Depression IS a chemical imbalance.

It can be triggered by adverse circumstances, or other conditions.
You might was well say that the chemical imbalance is caused by depression as the other way round.
Its really about perspective.

Funny how one can start a comment with No and basically repeat what was previously stated.

No. I said the opposite of what you said; Indicated by the "no".
Thanks for playing.

[Memaw18]

I'm working as a social worker. Stress is nature. It depends on the individual on how much they were affected by stress. Too much stress/pressure will cause an imbalance which is bad. However, stress can be something that makes us more human, it makes us learn and it makes us be more than what we think we are. So they are probably referring to TOO MUCH.

[Sushan]

Yes, stress is a more general term and for a deep discussion I think it has to be quantified correctly. But as per my experience the issue is not the amount of stress, but the time that you are exposed to it. Short term stress can be really productive though one is overwhelmed by it. At the same time even a small amount of stress can be harmful when one is exposed to it for a long time.

IMO there is such a thing as too much volume and too much duration.

I agree. Both components are there. But what is having more potential to break someone? I think most of people can tolerate immense stress for a short time rather than tolerating relatively low levels of stress for a longer duration. Depression can be found in people who are exposed to low stress levels for a long duration, but not in people who experience stress from time to time.

Well sadness is commonly caused by sad situations, which are by definition typically stressful. Depression is classically cause by neurochemical imbalance.

When we look at the history of psychology and psychiatry, clinicians thought of some illnesses as problems of thoughts and some as issues with the brain. But nowadays all the psychiatric disorders are considered as having a brain related etiology. So the chemical imbalance part has a validity. And for such a change to occur some time is needed. To such a change to become irreversible further more time is needed. So effect to the person will be determined more by the time than the severity as I see it.

[LuckyR]

IMO there is such a thing as too much volume and too much duration.

I agree. Both components are there. But what is having more potential to break someone? I think most of people can tolerate immense stress for a short time rather than tolerating relatively low levels of stress for a longer duration. Depression can be found in people who are exposed to low stress levels for a long duration, but not in people who experience stress from time to time.

Well sadness is commonly caused by sad situations, which are by definition typically stressful. Depression is classically cause by neurochemical imbalance.

When we look at the history of psychology and psychiatry, clinicians thought of some illnesses as problems of thoughts and some as issues with the brain. But nowadays all the psychiatric disorders are considered as having a brain related etiology. So the chemical imbalance part has a validity. And for such a change to occur some time is needed. To such a change to become irreversible further more time is needed. So effect to the person will be determined more by the time than the severity as I see it.

If you are hypothesizing that prolonged exposure to stress can cause clinical depression independent of further stress in someone without previous mood disorder, I am unaware of data to support it.

[Sushan]

Well sadness is commonly caused by sad situations, which are by definition typically stressful. Depression is classically cause by neurochemical imbalance.

No. Depression IS a chemical imbalance.

It can be triggered by adverse circumstances, or other conditions.
You might was well say that the chemical imbalance is caused by depression as the other way round.
Its really about perspective.

The argument depends on the belief of the presence of 'mind'. Some say there is a seperate thing called mind. But some say mind is also a result of chemical reactions that occur in our brain cells. If the latter is correct, whatever the emotions we feel will be a chemical balance or an imbalance. But if mind and brain are two seperate things then the relationship in between and the affect from one to the other has to be considered.