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

[Sushan]

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.

Psychiatric illnesses are not chronic, but they are cyclic.

All cyclic illnesses are by definition chronic. You are operating with a category error.
All apples are fruit, not all fruit are apples.
tut tut

I must say that you are over generalizing the meaning of terms. Chronic can be used for recurring illnesses, that is true. But 'cyclical' always does not mean recurring. And for the purpose of categorizing and treatment the same psychiatric illness can be named as a chronic one as well as a cyclically appearing one or recurring one. But that does not make the cyclical illness a chronic one. Chronic ones are treated continuously, but recurring or cyclical ones are treated accordingly. A patient can remain without any drugs, which cannot be practiced with a chronic illness.

[Sushan]

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.

I get that you have some first hand experience related to Schizophrenia and Depression, and may have lost any faith in medicine. But are you suggesting that none of the today's medicine can help people with psychiatric illnesses?

Strawman. I never suggested that.
You seem desperate to criticise what I have said.
You might want to read more carefully.

This is not Straw man philosophy or I not am having any need to criticise someone else's comments. Seemingly I do not have a reading problem as well. It is you who said,

...prescription drugs are not a solution anymore than alcohol or pot is.

Can you elaborate on this comment. As far as I see, you are comparing the treatment options for complex psychiatric illnesses to alcohol or pot. Isn't it a suggestion to say that modern medicine cannot help people with complex psychiatric illnesses? According to you, Bipolar Affective Disorder is simply treated with Lithium.

Bipolar is fairly easy treated with Lithium

Are you suggesting that Bipolar Affective Disorder (BAD) is a simple psychiatric disorder?

Once again I am reminding that this is not Straw man, but arguing on points that you have mentioned, with which I cannot simply agree.

[Sushan]

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 am not aware of any treatment for homosexuality in modern day medicine.

There are no valid ones not. But there are offered in the USA and many other European countries.

But I believe that such things are possible in various tribal levels.

Please cite.

Sexual attraction towards same sex or opposite sex is found to be in a range, and one of its extreme is called homosexuality. It is a condition, but not an illness.

I'd not call it a condition. I think many gays would find that very insulting.

Yes, there was an era when unusual ones were shamed labelling them as 'lunatics'. Such behaviours can be identified in any society. But with the medical as well as ethical development of the world, the psychiatric illnesses are given specific diagnostic criteria and such patients are given the necessary help. Still we see that people call people with unusual or unique behaviours 'lunatics'. Some people or societies never change.

And there are other situations in history where people were seen as "touched". Often the local seer, witch, hermit, shaman or holyman was the person we would now chose to denigrate as having a mental illness.

You might find a critical approach interesting.
Michel Foucault's, Madness and Civilisation is useful.

Thank you for mentioning about this renowned book which contains the evolution of the ideas of the society towards the mentally ill people. It explains how such people were treated as gifted ones in the era in which the knowledge was less but the superstitions were more powerful. With the increasing knowledge, people realized that it is not a gift but an illness. It is sad to see how these people were separated from the society and kept for the mere purpose of researching rather than curing them.

But in this process there have been many errors as some used this to remove people from the society on various personal agendas. And that is why today we have diagnostic criteria like ICD - 10 and DSM - V to objectively diagnose a patient with a psychiatric illness along with its sub category and its severity.

And for the notice, sorry I could not find any citations for what I have mentioned. But I believe that there are things that has not been yet revealed to the world from these hidden tribes. In the ancient times castration was used as the treatment for inguinal hernia. Maybe some hidden cultures are using that even today. Who knows!

Yes, homosexuality is not a 'condition', but it is a preference of a person depending on the chemical activity of his/her brain. The level of acceptance such a person gets depends on the society that he/she is living.

[Sushan]

Correct. While Sculptor is correct that the two are often conflated intentionally by companies seeking to make more drug sales, that doesn't therefore negate the field of psychiatry.

There is a great programme on BBC ATM, called The Psychodelic Drug Trial. It's run by the man who was sacked by the Labour government c.2008 for having the temerity to suggest that Ecstasy and Pot were less harmfull that alcohol and tobacco.
His vast experience in the field has led him to suggest an alternative treatment for chrinic depression; Psilocybin.
It's definitley worth a watch.
For my own part I certainly recognised the symptoms in the subjects trialed, where by useless and unresolvable thought cycle and get you no where but the brain in searching for a solution seems stuck in an infinite loop. I also was aware that episodes can be triggered by certain events unresolved.
My own experience with various illegal "recreational" drugs have been of great benifit. Magic mushrooms, in particular have allowed me to "re-set" my thinking. Ecstasy helped me be more congenial, and some years after taking them helped my find a lifetime partner, as it set me on a more positive pathway.
Cannabis has been more or less a mild intoxicant.
I've found none of these addictive, I have to say. And I do not know anyone who couldn't just say no to them. Alcohol and Nicotine, Crack, Cocaine, are all very addictive.

I'd not recommend any of the latter. But regard ecstsy and psilocybin as more or less harmless if take sensibly.

These psychedelic drugs can actually play a role in treating psychiatric illnesses as they too act on the same pathways of neurotransmitters, of which the disruptions cause various mental illnesses. But I see few practical issues in prescribing these as legal medicine.

1. People act in various ways to various drugs. One might be calm and quiet after taking some drug, but another can be aggressive and violent after taking the same.

2. It is not easy to research on humans using these drugs due to various ethical issues.

3. Though people do not easily get addicted to many of these drugs, there is the potential risk of getting addicted. Addiction has its own levels and with the progression of addiction the addicts will take increased amounts of these drugs which will cause more harm.

4. It is hard to determine the content of these drugs because they come from various providers and they make them with various ingredients. The production can be centralized if the drugs are made legal and accepted as a treatment. But even for that, the correct ingredients should be identified in the correct amounts, which is not an easy task.

5. If the majority start to believe that these psychedelic drugs actually cure illnesses, these drugs will be freely available and the number addicts will go up.

[mystery]

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.

Heaven is a good concept as a tool to control human behaviour, so as the concept of Hell. But if these concepts were that much strong, and many were not willing to not accept them out of fear for being shamed in front of the society, today's society should have been a perfect one with no crimes but all the good deeds. But as we see, such a state is not achieved even though we have so many rules and regulations. Seemingly the religious concepts are not much accepted in the current world.

You're right, as strong as it is, religion is but a speck in comparison to the power of mother nature and biology.

Exactly. Religions and related concepts are man-made. But nature is not so and it is not even fully understood by humans so far. We have no idea why somethings happen but why somethings do not happen. As you also have mentioned in your previous post, its behaviour is not just. It allows the strongest to survive but remove the weak ones from the system. Still we call it 'mother nature'. Why do we call something so unjust a 'mother'? Or do we have a wrong concept with regard to the word 'mother'?

wow!! nice. we could have an entire topic probably about the word mother.

[Sushan]

Heaven is a good concept as a tool to control human behaviour, so as the concept of Hell. But if these concepts were that much strong, and many were not willing to not accept them out of fear for being shamed in front of the society, today's society should have been a perfect one with no crimes but all the good deeds. But as we see, such a state is not achieved even though we have so many rules and regulations. Seemingly the religious concepts are not much accepted in the current world.

You're right, as strong as it is, religion is but a speck in comparison to the power of mother nature and biology.

Exactly. Religions and related concepts are man-made. But nature is not so and it is not even fully understood by humans so far. We have no idea why somethings happen but why somethings do not happen. As you also have mentioned in your previous post, its behaviour is not just. It allows the strongest to survive but remove the weak ones from the system. Still we call it 'mother nature'. Why do we call something so unjust a 'mother'? Or do we have a wrong concept with regard to the word 'mother'?

wow!! nice. we could have an entire topic probably about the word mother.

Yes, of course. Thank you

[ChristinaWagner76]

I do agree with the author. If someone were to follow the guidance they received on how to follow Jesus, that would mean that every decision they make will be after thinking about the path Jesus wants for them. This would affect how they do their job, how they live as a person, interests, hobbies, relationships, how they handle problems. The list goes on. Because they would be putting Jesus first in all their doings.

[Xenophon]

The below mentioned quote is found on page 27 of the book for the month of May, Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through by Jeff Meyer.

Following Jesus Will Impact Every Aspect of Your Life, Not Just the “Spiritual” Part

Do you agree? If so, why?

One can make the same claim for seriously following anyone or any creed (including one's own lead.) It's the definition of allegiance, I should think.

Put otherwise, how could a commitment affect one ONLY "spiritually"? What would that even mean? That the word "Jesus" gave me a warm fuzzy feeling, even while I dealt meth, cheated on my taxes, and kept the neighbor's kid as my catamite acolyte?