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

[Sculptor1]

Indeed not. Common delusions are very serious indeed.
Human society is dangerously deluded.
People are killed every day due to delusions.

Says who?

You can check any psychiatry book or even google and see the meaning of the word 'delusion'.

Neither psychologists nor psychologists invented the word. It had coinage 300 years before the "art" of psychology.
So the rest of your offering is null and void.
Monopolies do not exist on words.

There are many terms that are misused. But that does not change its meaning, only the meaning is manipulated by various people for their own agendas. There are occasions that though someone can read a word, cannot understand it properly. That also does not change the real meaning of that word.

People can be deluded by various things. And if they cause harm to others because of that, they are taken into mental health related hospitals under a mental health act and treated accordingly. But the things that some people do due to their personal agendas cannot be categorized as delusions because they have their own motives for their acts and behaviours.

Have you ever stopped to consdier the depths of your own quotidian delusions?

Everything cannot be defined by history. Something coming into practice early does not make it right.

You are denyng my value as a historian, and also denying the normal use of a word appropriated more lately by a discipline not directly assocated with this forum . Many philosphers would agree with me that religion is, in fact a delusion. So trying to undermine my argument by bringing in a definition from outside the discipline of philosophy is not appreciated. Words should be taken as they are meant. I do not expect to see a definition Nazi and you should not expect me to respond positively to such pedanticism.

I may have my delusions and I will keep them (but I only used the word 'delusions' only for the sake of your understanding. I am not having any firm beliefs related to anything. If you can prove me wrong, I will accept at any point).

There's already plenty to go on, but you are not in the habit of revealing anything about yourself. One delusion that is obvious is your pedantic belief in attacting narrowly defined meanings to words, with disregard for common parlance and typical use. Words do not have fixed and indelible meanings and it is a delusion to think that is the case.

A word which is used wrong by the common people does not change its meaning.

Delusional.
Word meanings are ever changing.

But someone accepting that distorted meaning makes his intellect less valuable, and when that someone argues upon that it becomes humorous.

Tutut. Ad hominems??

Maybe you should let Richard Dawkins know that his intellect is below your own lofty one??

Christopher Hitchens would often compare faith to delusion. His intellect was so much higher than any contributor to this Forum.
If anyone looks humourous, that would be you.

Just to make it perfectly clear.
I have no hesitation regarding all religion as human kind's most dangerous delusion, and regard it as a mental illness in the extreme.

[Sushan]

You can check any psychiatry book or even google and see the meaning of the word 'delusion'.

Neither psychologists nor psychologists invented the word. It had coinage 300 years before the "art" of psychology.
So the rest of your offering is null and void.
Monopolies do not exist on words.

There are many terms that are misused. But that does not change its meaning, only the meaning is manipulated by various people for their own agendas. There are occasions that though someone can read a word, cannot understand it properly. That also does not change the real meaning of that word.

People can be deluded by various things. And if they cause harm to others because of that, they are taken into mental health related hospitals under a mental health act and treated accordingly. But the things that some people do due to their personal agendas cannot be categorized as delusions because they have their own motives for their acts and behaviours.

Have you ever stopped to consdier the depths of your own quotidian delusions?

Everything cannot be defined by history. Something coming into practice early does not make it right.

You are denyng my value as a historian, and also denying the normal use of a word appropriated more lately by a discipline not directly assocated with this forum . Many philosphers would agree with me that religion is, in fact a delusion. So trying to undermine my argument by bringing in a definition from outside the discipline of philosophy is not appreciated. Words should be taken as they are meant. I do not expect to see a definition Nazi and you should not expect me to respond positively to such pedanticism.

I may have my delusions and I will keep them (but I only used the word 'delusions' only for the sake of your understanding. I am not having any firm beliefs related to anything. If you can prove me wrong, I will accept at any point).

There's already plenty to go on, but you are not in the habit of revealing anything about yourself. One delusion that is obvious is your pedantic belief in attacting narrowly defined meanings to words, with disregard for common parlance and typical use. Words do not have fixed and indelible meanings and it is a delusion to think that is the case.

A word which is used wrong by the common people does not change its meaning.

Delusional.
Word meanings are ever changing.

But someone accepting that distorted meaning makes his intellect less valuable, and when that someone argues upon that it becomes humorous.

Tutut. Ad hominems??

Maybe you should let Richard Dawkins know that his intellect is below your own lofty one??

Christopher Hitchens would often compare faith to delusion. His intellect was so much higher than any contributor to this Forum.
If anyone looks humourous, that would be you.

Just to make it perfectly clear.
I have no hesitation regarding all religion as human kind's most dangerous delusion, and regard it as a mental illness in the extreme.

In extremes, anything can be a mental disorder. But not everything that are extreme categorized as mental disorders. And that is why specific mental disorders are given specific diagnostic criteria. Otherwise a man's personality trait will be named as a psychiatric disorder. This is similar for the meanings of the words. Yes, their meanings can be changed. But technical terms are not subjected for change of the meaning because it will definitely harm the practices that use those words in a technical way. And also naming religious beliefs as delusions is quite Narcistic, which is a personality trait as well.

[mystery]

Hi Sushan,

It would be easy to make technical points on this topic, that avoid the issue. Instead, I'll just tell, yes I agree.

Usually, in this context follow means to try to behave and react in the ways suggested by Jesus. If doing that the impact is much, spiritual, physical, psychological, emotional, probably others I don't list. It is a lifestyle and decision framework for everything if being congruent. I have not read the book but familiar with the idea. For example, one can be a thief and tell that following Jesus. That would not be congruent as those activities are not endorsed by Jesus.

Spiritual itself touches all parts of our life, by only touching that will affect all.

Hi mystery,

Thank you for your valuable opinion.

You have a valid point. One can adopt what Jesus did as a human to one's lifestyle and that will impact all activities related to his life. But given the life that Jesus led and how he ended up, will it be healthy for a person at present to fully adopt to His lifestyle?

I will love to hear other opinions on this also.

I don't think so, I wish that it would be, and not in a way that many have build systems around his memory but in a way to truly follow the same ideals he did. The only way that makes sense is if it was tied to the eternal as is his promise. Otherwise no, the truth of human nature is that the strong take all and decide what is allowed to the less strong. Following Jesus is a path to evolutionary removal. Reward in heaven perhaps, on earth, no. Biological selection will reward the strong, not the just. It is what it is.

Biological selection and the strong one winning are things that we have experienced throughout the history and we are experiencing that today as well. But, has anyone seen heaven or has experienced spiritual development other than being heard of someone else's sayings? In such a background, is it wise to take a step away from evolution and go after an unknown, unseen heaven and a spiritual development giving up all the mundane comforts?

We agree on the power and reality of biology. Albeit it is often shrouded, with some effort it can be readily understood and managed.

If we saw heaven and told about it who will believe, for sure not the people that know us well.

Objectively heaven is the greatest tool to manage others. Simply teach them that competing and winning is bad/shameful. Sacrifice our natural desires now and get a reward later when dead. It is the perfect tool, no one can ever tell it is not true without question and shame. It is easier to back away from competition and go with a promise that hiding strength will be rewarded. At the same time the strong rule without challenge.

If life and time is without limits, then yes to explore every possibility is with merit. As it is we must choose and can not try all choices.

If we could somehow convince everyone else to not compete with us, we will be assured of success in all areas. psychological warfare.

Without religion and morality, every man wants to be king. Is life better with religion, yes it is, for the king.

Religion knows this, it is why all religions include a concept of marriage. Getting control of biology is the real root of power.

perhaps I over answer and am rambling.

[Sculptor1]

Neither psychologists nor psychologists invented the word. It had coinage 300 years before the "art" of psychology.
So the rest of your offering is null and void.
Monopolies do not exist on words.


Have you ever stopped to consdier the depths of your own quotidian delusions?

Everything cannot be defined by history. Something coming into practice early does not make it right.

You are denyng my value as a historian, and also denying the normal use of a word appropriated more lately by a discipline not directly assocated with this forum . Many philosphers would agree with me that religion is, in fact a delusion. So trying to undermine my argument by bringing in a definition from outside the discipline of philosophy is not appreciated. Words should be taken as they are meant. I do not expect to see a definition Nazi and you should not expect me to respond positively to such pedanticism.

I may have my delusions and I will keep them (but I only used the word 'delusions' only for the sake of your understanding. I am not having any firm beliefs related to anything. If you can prove me wrong, I will accept at any point).

There's already plenty to go on, but you are not in the habit of revealing anything about yourself. One delusion that is obvious is your pedantic belief in attacting narrowly defined meanings to words, with disregard for common parlance and typical use. Words do not have fixed and indelible meanings and it is a delusion to think that is the case.

A word which is used wrong by the common people does not change its meaning.

Delusional.
Word meanings are ever changing.

But someone accepting that distorted meaning makes his intellect less valuable, and when that someone argues upon that it becomes humorous.

Tutut. Ad hominems??

Maybe you should let Richard Dawkins know that his intellect is below your own lofty one??

Christopher Hitchens would often compare faith to delusion. His intellect was so much higher than any contributor to this Forum.
If anyone looks humourous, that would be you.

Just to make it perfectly clear.
I have no hesitation regarding all religion as human kind's most dangerous delusion, and regard it as a mental illness in the extreme.

In extremes, anything can be a mental disorder. But not everything that are extreme categorized as mental disorders. And that is why specific mental disorders are given specific diagnostic criteria. Otherwise a man's personality trait will be named as a psychiatric disorder. This is similar for the meanings of the words. Yes, their meanings can be changed. But technical terms are not subjected for change of the meaning because it will definitely harm the practices that use those words in a technical way. And also naming religious beliefs as delusions is quite Narcistic, which is a personality trait as well.

And your point is what....?

Parmaceuticals are in the business of inventing mental illnesses, and exporting them as ideas to poorer countries and emerging markets.
They call it exporting a category. India was the recent reciepent of such an export in the matter of "depression" - a category previously unheard of in times past. Now it is highly fashionable to obtain various kinds of anteprepressants, which Pharma have been only too happy to supply by the ship load.

Back on topic. Religion is much the same; it validates a system of bad thinking, making okay to ignore reason and accept faith as an alternative.

[LuckyR]

Everything cannot be defined by history. Something coming into practice early does not make it right.

You are denyng my value as a historian, and also denying the normal use of a word appropriated more lately by a discipline not directly assocated with this forum . Many philosphers would agree with me that religion is, in fact a delusion. So trying to undermine my argument by bringing in a definition from outside the discipline of philosophy is not appreciated. Words should be taken as they are meant. I do not expect to see a definition Nazi and you should not expect me to respond positively to such pedanticism.

I may have my delusions and I will keep them (but I only used the word 'delusions' only for the sake of your understanding. I am not having any firm beliefs related to anything. If you can prove me wrong, I will accept at any point).

There's already plenty to go on, but you are not in the habit of revealing anything about yourself. One delusion that is obvious is your pedantic belief in attacting narrowly defined meanings to words, with disregard for common parlance and typical use. Words do not have fixed and indelible meanings and it is a delusion to think that is the case.

A word which is used wrong by the common people does not change its meaning.

Delusional.
Word meanings are ever changing.

But someone accepting that distorted meaning makes his intellect less valuable, and when that someone argues upon that it becomes humorous.

Tutut. Ad hominems??

Maybe you should let Richard Dawkins know that his intellect is below your own lofty one??

Christopher Hitchens would often compare faith to delusion. His intellect was so much higher than any contributor to this Forum.
If anyone looks humourous, that would be you.

Just to make it perfectly clear.
I have no hesitation regarding all religion as human kind's most dangerous delusion, and regard it as a mental illness in the extreme.

In extremes, anything can be a mental disorder. But not everything that are extreme categorized as mental disorders. And that is why specific mental disorders are given specific diagnostic criteria. Otherwise a man's personality trait will be named as a psychiatric disorder. This is similar for the meanings of the words. Yes, their meanings can be changed. But technical terms are not subjected for change of the meaning because it will definitely harm the practices that use those words in a technical way. And also naming religious beliefs as delusions is quite Narcistic, which is a personality trait as well.

And your point is what....?

Parmaceuticals are in the business of inventing mental illnesses, and exporting them as ideas to poorer countries and emerging markets.
They call it exporting a category. India was the recent reciepent of such an export in the matter of "depression" - a category previously unheard of in times past. Now it is highly fashionable to obtain various kinds of anteprepressants, which Pharma have been only too happy to supply by the ship load.

Back on topic. Religion is much the same; it validates a system of bad thinking, making okay to ignore reason and accept faith as an alternative.

You aren't trying to imply that India is immune to depression, are you?

[Sculptor1]

You are denyng my value as a historian, and also denying the normal use of a word appropriated more lately by a discipline not directly assocated with this forum . Many philosphers would agree with me that religion is, in fact a delusion. So trying to undermine my argument by bringing in a definition from outside the discipline of philosophy is not appreciated. Words should be taken as they are meant. I do not expect to see a definition Nazi and you should not expect me to respond positively to such pedanticism.

There's already plenty to go on, but you are not in the habit of revealing anything about yourself. One delusion that is obvious is your pedantic belief in attacting narrowly defined meanings to words, with disregard for common parlance and typical use. Words do not have fixed and indelible meanings and it is a delusion to think that is the case.

Delusional.
Word meanings are ever changing.


Tutut. Ad hominems??

Maybe you should let Richard Dawkins know that his intellect is below your own lofty one??

Christopher Hitchens would often compare faith to delusion. His intellect was so much higher than any contributor to this Forum.
If anyone looks humourous, that would be you.

Just to make it perfectly clear.
I have no hesitation regarding all religion as human kind's most dangerous delusion, and regard it as a mental illness in the extreme.

In extremes, anything can be a mental disorder. But not everything that are extreme categorized as mental disorders. And that is why specific mental disorders are given specific diagnostic criteria. Otherwise a man's personality trait will be named as a psychiatric disorder. This is similar for the meanings of the words. Yes, their meanings can be changed. But technical terms are not subjected for change of the meaning because it will definitely harm the practices that use those words in a technical way. And also naming religious beliefs as delusions is quite Narcistic, which is a personality trait as well.

And your point is what....?

Parmaceuticals are in the business of inventing mental illnesses, and exporting them as ideas to poorer countries and emerging markets.
They call it exporting a category. India was the recent reciepent of such an export in the matter of "depression" - a category previously unheard of in times past. Now it is highly fashionable to obtain various kinds of anteprepressants, which Pharma have been only too happy to supply by the ship load.

Back on topic. Religion is much the same; it validates a system of bad thinking, making okay to ignore reason and accept faith as an alternative.

You aren't trying to imply that India is immune to depression, are you?

I am suggesting the possibility that once upun a time people got sad for specific reasons. Now they no longer try to understand those reasons when they can reach for a pill.
Humans managed for 100,000 years without obsessing over this and many other categories.
WHy reflect upon how to improve your life when you can just drop a Valium.
I get depressed. I take steps to improve. I do not make a fetish out of my illness, and get on with things without the "help" (ahem!) of drugs.

[LuckyR]

In extremes, anything can be a mental disorder. But not everything that are extreme categorized as mental disorders. And that is why specific mental disorders are given specific diagnostic criteria. Otherwise a man's personality trait will be named as a psychiatric disorder. This is similar for the meanings of the words. Yes, their meanings can be changed. But technical terms are not subjected for change of the meaning because it will definitely harm the practices that use those words in a technical way. And also naming religious beliefs as delusions is quite Narcistic, which is a personality trait as well.

And your point is what....?

Parmaceuticals are in the business of inventing mental illnesses, and exporting them as ideas to poorer countries and emerging markets.
They call it exporting a category. India was the recent reciepent of such an export in the matter of "depression" - a category previously unheard of in times past. Now it is highly fashionable to obtain various kinds of anteprepressants, which Pharma have been only too happy to supply by the ship load.

Back on topic. Religion is much the same; it validates a system of bad thinking, making okay to ignore reason and accept faith as an alternative.

You aren't trying to imply that India is immune to depression, are you?

I am suggesting the possibility that once upun a time people got sad for specific reasons. Now they no longer try to understand those reasons when they can reach for a pill.
Humans managed for 100,000 years without obsessing over this and many other categories.
WHy reflect upon how to improve your life when you can just drop a Valium.
I get depressed. I take steps to improve. I do not make a fetish out of my illness, and get on with things without the "help" (ahem!) of drugs.

You seem to be confusing sadness (typically caused by negative life events) with depression (caused by neurotransmitter imbalance in the brain).

[Sculptor1]

And your point is what....?

Parmaceuticals are in the business of inventing mental illnesses, and exporting them as ideas to poorer countries and emerging markets.
They call it exporting a category. India was the recent reciepent of such an export in the matter of "depression" - a category previously unheard of in times past. Now it is highly fashionable to obtain various kinds of anteprepressants, which Pharma have been only too happy to supply by the ship load.

Back on topic. Religion is much the same; it validates a system of bad thinking, making okay to ignore reason and accept faith as an alternative.

You aren't trying to imply that India is immune to depression, are you?

I am suggesting the possibility that once upun a time people got sad for specific reasons. Now they no longer try to understand those reasons when they can reach for a pill.
Humans managed for 100,000 years without obsessing over this and many other categories.
WHy reflect upon how to improve your life when you can just drop a Valium.
I get depressed. I take steps to improve. I do not make a fetish out of my illness, and get on with things without the "help" (ahem!) of drugs.

You seem to be confusing sadness (typically caused by negative life events) with depression (caused by neurotransmitter imbalance in the brain).

Sadness is the same as the brain state that identifies it, as is happiness; and hat people like to call depression , or elation is also characterised by neurological states.
So you are making an absurd distinction.
I'm not saying that mental illness is not a thing, I am suggesting that the drugs availiable for it tend to define the categories rather than the other way round.
"Mental Illness" is a very recent category and has been mobilised to crush difference and dissent. Activities outside the norm are the focus of scorn and attract oppression. China is an extreme example, but in the not too distant past we have the same sort of thing in the West, and there are still "cures" for homosexuality and other form s of deviancy.

[LuckyR]

You aren't trying to imply that India is immune to depression, are you?

I am suggesting the possibility that once upun a time people got sad for specific reasons. Now they no longer try to understand those reasons when they can reach for a pill.
Humans managed for 100,000 years without obsessing over this and many other categories.
WHy reflect upon how to improve your life when you can just drop a Valium.
I get depressed. I take steps to improve. I do not make a fetish out of my illness, and get on with things without the "help" (ahem!) of drugs.

You seem to be confusing sadness (typically caused by negative life events) with depression (caused by neurotransmitter imbalance in the brain).

Sadness is the same as the brain state that identifies it, as is happiness; and hat people like to call depression , or elation is also characterised by neurological states.
So you are making an absurd distinction.
I'm not saying that mental illness is not a thing, I am suggesting that the drugs availiable for it tend to define the categories rather than the other way round.
"Mental Illness" is a very recent category and has been mobilised to crush difference and dissent. Activities outside the norm are the focus of scorn and attract oppression. China is an extreme example, but in the not too distant past we have the same sort of thing in the West, and there are still "cures" for homosexuality and other form s of deviancy.

I assume, since you report acceptance of the existence of mental illness, that you do get that those with clinical depression don't need to have a negative life event to feel depressed, right?

I don't disagree that drug companies are interested in maximizing profit and thus seek to blur the lines between sadness and depression. Similarly others with agendas (politicians, lawyers, activists etc) have tried to gloss over the difference between normal and abnormal moods.

[Sculptor1]

I am suggesting the possibility that once upun a time people got sad for specific reasons. Now they no longer try to understand those reasons when they can reach for a pill.
Humans managed for 100,000 years without obsessing over this and many other categories.
WHy reflect upon how to improve your life when you can just drop a Valium.
I get depressed. I take steps to improve. I do not make a fetish out of my illness, and get on with things without the "help" (ahem!) of drugs.

You seem to be confusing sadness (typically caused by negative life events) with depression (caused by neurotransmitter imbalance in the brain).

Sadness is the same as the brain state that identifies it, as is happiness; and hat people like to call depression , or elation is also characterised by neurological states.
So you are making an absurd distinction.
I'm not saying that mental illness is not a thing, I am suggesting that the drugs availiable for it tend to define the categories rather than the other way round.
"Mental Illness" is a very recent category and has been mobilised to crush difference and dissent. Activities outside the norm are the focus of scorn and attract oppression. China is an extreme example, but in the not too distant past we have the same sort of thing in the West, and there are still "cures" for homosexuality and other form s of deviancy.

I assume, since you report acceptance of the existence of mental illness, that you do get that those with clinical depression don't need to have a negative life event to feel depressed, right?

Mostly the depression has a trigger. Bipolarity does seem cyclic but that can is not without triggers too. I'm no expert but from what I gather the downs can be a direct response to letting yourself engage too fully in the highs, as if there is a limited store of optimism that gets used up, ready for a rest which is the low. Despite the stuff about neurochemical no one really understands it, as much as they pretend they do. Diagnosis is basically via behaviour, and since that behaviour is a brain state there is a potential for false dualistic refections on cause and effect. Bipolar is fairly easy treated with Lithium.
There are far more complex problems. My brother has had shizophrenia for 40 years. So it is not like I do not know something about this. Myself and my son have depression, but prescription drugs are not a solution anymore than alcohol or pot is.

I don't disagree that drug companies are interested in maximizing profit and thus seek to blur the lines between sadness and depression. Similarly others with agendas (politicians, lawyers, activists etc) have tried to gloss over the difference between normal and abnormal moods.

[LuckyR]

You seem to be confusing sadness (typically caused by negative life events) with depression (caused by neurotransmitter imbalance in the brain).

Sadness is the same as the brain state that identifies it, as is happiness; and hat people like to call depression , or elation is also characterised by neurological states.
So you are making an absurd distinction.
I'm not saying that mental illness is not a thing, I am suggesting that the drugs availiable for it tend to define the categories rather than the other way round.
"Mental Illness" is a very recent category and has been mobilised to crush difference and dissent. Activities outside the norm are the focus of scorn and attract oppression. China is an extreme example, but in the not too distant past we have the same sort of thing in the West, and there are still "cures" for homosexuality and other form s of deviancy.

I assume, since you report acceptance of the existence of mental illness, that you do get that those with clinical depression don't need to have a negative life event to feel depressed, right?

Mostly the depression has a trigger. Bipolarity does seem cyclic but that can is not without triggers too. I'm no expert but from what I gather the downs can be a direct response to letting yourself engage too fully in the highs, as if there is a limited store of optimism that gets used up, ready for a rest which is the low. Despite the stuff about neurochemical no one really understands it, as much as they pretend they do. Diagnosis is basically via behaviour, and since that behaviour is a brain state there is a potential for false dualistic refections on cause and effect. Bipolar is fairly easy treated with Lithium.
There are far more complex problems. My brother has had shizophrenia for 40 years. So it is not like I do not know something about this. Myself and my son have depression, but prescription drugs are not a solution anymore than alcohol or pot is.

I don't disagree that drug companies are interested in maximizing profit and thus seek to blur the lines between sadness and depression. Similarly others with agendas (politicians, lawyers, activists etc) have tried to gloss over the difference between normal and abnormal moods.

Anti-depressants are not a cure, that's true. Of course insulin is not an the cure for type 1 diabetes. It is a temporary symptom reliever. In fact just about all chronic diseases are not curable (by definition).

[Sculptor1]

Sadness is the same as the brain state that identifies it, as is happiness; and hat people like to call depression , or elation is also characterised by neurological states.
So you are making an absurd distinction.
I'm not saying that mental illness is not a thing, I am suggesting that the drugs availiable for it tend to define the categories rather than the other way round.
"Mental Illness" is a very recent category and has been mobilised to crush difference and dissent. Activities outside the norm are the focus of scorn and attract oppression. China is an extreme example, but in the not too distant past we have the same sort of thing in the West, and there are still "cures" for homosexuality and other form s of deviancy.

I assume, since you report acceptance of the existence of mental illness, that you do get that those with clinical depression don't need to have a negative life event to feel depressed, right?

Mostly the depression has a trigger. Bipolarity does seem cyclic but that can is not without triggers too. I'm no expert but from what I gather the downs can be a direct response to letting yourself engage too fully in the highs, as if there is a limited store of optimism that gets used up, ready for a rest which is the low. Despite the stuff about neurochemical no one really understands it, as much as they pretend they do. Diagnosis is basically via behaviour, and since that behaviour is a brain state there is a potential for false dualistic refections on cause and effect. Bipolar is fairly easy treated with Lithium.
There are far more complex problems. My brother has had shizophrenia for 40 years. So it is not like I do not know something about this. Myself and my son have depression, but prescription drugs are not a solution anymore than alcohol or pot is.

I don't disagree that drug companies are interested in maximizing profit and thus seek to blur the lines between sadness and depression. Similarly others with agendas (politicians, lawyers, activists etc) have tried to gloss over the difference between normal and abnormal moods.

Anti-depressants are not a cure, that's true. Of course insulin is not an the cure for type 1 diabetes. It is a temporary symptom reliever. In fact just about all chronic diseases are not curable (by definition).

A very poor analogy. For two reasons.

1) You can live without any psychoactive drugs, depressants and other offerings that screw with your head. No one can live without insulin, and if you are type 1 diabetic you die if you do not take it.

2) Insulin is not comparable since it specifically and directly targets a missing facor in the blood which it directly replaces. This may not be said of ANY psychoactive drug. And in many cases they can have serious effects which have nothing whatever to do with solving a problem.

There is a third reason which applies to many not all cases of mental illness; that many are not chronic.

[LuckyR]

I assume, since you report acceptance of the existence of mental illness, that you do get that those with clinical depression don't need to have a negative life event to feel depressed, right?

Mostly the depression has a trigger. Bipolarity does seem cyclic but that can is not without triggers too. I'm no expert but from what I gather the downs can be a direct response to letting yourself engage too fully in the highs, as if there is a limited store of optimism that gets used up, ready for a rest which is the low. Despite the stuff about neurochemical no one really understands it, as much as they pretend they do. Diagnosis is basically via behaviour, and since that behaviour is a brain state there is a potential for false dualistic refections on cause and effect. Bipolar is fairly easy treated with Lithium.
There are far more complex problems. My brother has had shizophrenia for 40 years. So it is not like I do not know something about this. Myself and my son have depression, but prescription drugs are not a solution anymore than alcohol or pot is.

I don't disagree that drug companies are interested in maximizing profit and thus seek to blur the lines between sadness and depression. Similarly others with agendas (politicians, lawyers, activists etc) have tried to gloss over the difference between normal and abnormal moods.

Anti-depressants are not a cure, that's true. Of course insulin is not an the cure for type 1 diabetes. It is a temporary symptom reliever. In fact just about all chronic diseases are not curable (by definition).

A very poor analogy. For two reasons.

1) You can live without any psychoactive drugs, depressants and other offerings that screw with your head. No one can live without insulin, and if you are type 1 diabetic you die if you do not take it.

2) Insulin is not comparable since it specifically and directly targets a missing facor in the blood which it directly replaces. This may not be said of ANY psychoactive drug. And in many cases they can have serious effects which have nothing whatever to do with solving a problem.

There is a third reason which applies to many not all cases of mental illness; that many are not chronic.

1) Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the issue of suicide as a result of clinical depression.

2) Perhaps you are also unfamiliar with low serotonin (depression) being raised with SSRIs. Analogous to low insulin or thyroid hormone being replaced with similar chemicals.

3) True, some aren't chronic, yet most are.

[Sculptor1]

Mostly the depression has a trigger. Bipolarity does seem cyclic but that can is not without triggers too. I'm no expert but from what I gather the downs can be a direct response to letting yourself engage too fully in the highs, as if there is a limited store of optimism that gets used up, ready for a rest which is the low. Despite the stuff about neurochemical no one really understands it, as much as they pretend they do. Diagnosis is basically via behaviour, and since that behaviour is a brain state there is a potential for false dualistic refections on cause and effect. Bipolar is fairly easy treated with Lithium.
There are far more complex problems. My brother has had shizophrenia for 40 years. So it is not like I do not know something about this. Myself and my son have depression, but prescription drugs are not a solution anymore than alcohol or pot is.

Anti-depressants are not a cure, that's true. Of course insulin is not an the cure for type 1 diabetes. It is a temporary symptom reliever. In fact just about all chronic diseases are not curable (by definition).

A very poor analogy. For two reasons.

1) You can live without any psychoactive drugs, depressants and other offerings that screw with your head. No one can live without insulin, and if you are type 1 diabetic you die if you do not take it.

2) Insulin is not comparable since it specifically and directly targets a missing facor in the blood which it directly replaces. This may not be said of ANY psychoactive drug. And in many cases they can have serious effects which have nothing whatever to do with solving a problem.

There is a third reason which applies to many not all cases of mental illness; that many are not chronic.

1) Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the issue of suicide as a result of clinical depression.

Try not to be patronising. Suicide does not change my viewpoint. Sane people; drugged up people; and people off their meds all commit suicide.

2) Perhaps you are also unfamiliar with low serotonin (depression) being raised with SSRIs. Analogous to low insulin or thyroid hormone being replaced with similar chemicals.

See abpve

3) True, some aren't chronic, yet most are.

[Sushan]

Everything cannot be defined by history. Something coming into practice early does not make it right.

You are denyng my value as a historian, and also denying the normal use of a word appropriated more lately by a discipline not directly assocated with this forum . Many philosphers would agree with me that religion is, in fact a delusion. So trying to undermine my argument by bringing in a definition from outside the discipline of philosophy is not appreciated. Words should be taken as they are meant. I do not expect to see a definition Nazi and you should not expect me to respond positively to such pedanticism.

I may have my delusions and I will keep them (but I only used the word 'delusions' only for the sake of your understanding. I am not having any firm beliefs related to anything. If you can prove me wrong, I will accept at any point).

There's already plenty to go on, but you are not in the habit of revealing anything about yourself. One delusion that is obvious is your pedantic belief in attacting narrowly defined meanings to words, with disregard for common parlance and typical use. Words do not have fixed and indelible meanings and it is a delusion to think that is the case.

A word which is used wrong by the common people does not change its meaning.

Delusional.
Word meanings are ever changing.

But someone accepting that distorted meaning makes his intellect less valuable, and when that someone argues upon that it becomes humorous.

Tutut. Ad hominems??

Maybe you should let Richard Dawkins know that his intellect is below your own lofty one??

Christopher Hitchens would often compare faith to delusion. His intellect was so much higher than any contributor to this Forum.
If anyone looks humourous, that would be you.

Just to make it perfectly clear.
I have no hesitation regarding all religion as human kind's most dangerous delusion, and regard it as a mental illness in the extreme.

In extremes, anything can be a mental disorder. But not everything that are extreme categorized as mental disorders. And that is why specific mental disorders are given specific diagnostic criteria. Otherwise a man's personality trait will be named as a psychiatric disorder. This is similar for the meanings of the words. Yes, their meanings can be changed. But technical terms are not subjected for change of the meaning because it will definitely harm the practices that use those words in a technical way. And also naming religious beliefs as delusions is quite Narcistic, which is a personality trait as well.

And your point is what....?

Parmaceuticals are in the business of inventing mental illnesses, and exporting them as ideas to poorer countries and emerging markets.
They call it exporting a category. India was the recent reciepent of such an export in the matter of "depression" - a category previously unheard of in times past. Now it is highly fashionable to obtain various kinds of anteprepressants, which Pharma have been only too happy to supply by the ship load.

Back on topic. Religion is much the same; it validates a system of bad thinking, making okay to ignore reason and accept faith as an alternative.

Pharmaceuticals can be marketing diseases. So are the companies that make anti-virus software. They produce new viruses. But that does not imply that there are no naturally born viruses. So are the illnesses. There are illnesses that are not marketed by pharmaceuticals, but are existing and has to be treated. Today the issue with this self-medication by many in the society is not only due to the advertisements by the pharmaceuticals, but also because people read about illnesses on internet, feel like doctors, self- diagnose and self-prescribe.

And regarding the religions, I don't think the religions are forcing humans to ignore reasoning, but people are the ones who ignore reasoning and hand over everything to faith in the name of various religions.