Discussing Mental Illness

>>Okay, how did you arrive at that conclusion? What is your basis?<<

Well, I think the description was very well put. I've come to a similar one myself, based on exploring a wide range of philosophers, religions, political systems, and historical examples.

There are various sources of input: thoughts and facts are of the mind, desires and feelings are of the heart, and faith and virtues are of the soul. For best function, use all of them. Ignoring any can cause problems. Ignore rationality and the facts can kill you or others. Ignore emotional reality and you can quite logically arrange a life that leaves you miserable. Ignore spirituality and you will be without higher support in dark challenges.

I worry about people who eschew the use of logic and facts when making decisions, and make theirs exclusively or primarily based on emotion and/or faith, because I have observed that those decision-making methods tend to generate choices with very unpleasant consequences. Compare the Dark Ages (a faith-dominant cultural wave) to the Classical and Renaissance periods (both favoring rational lines, with some extra emotional upwelling in the Renaissance). This does not necessarily mean that all faith-based or emotion-based decisions are wrong -- merely that it is very easy to be blindsided by facts if you ignore them in your decision-making.

>> Rand, for example, would say that society should be based on an ethic of "rational self-interest" (whose derivation I won't bore you with - I'm only picking on her because I'm familiar with her work, not because I prefer her position). How do you refute her position?<<

There's a very useful test to see how effective a philosophical premise is: What would happen if everyone followed it? Rational self-interest is another way of saying "every man for himself" -- Rand's philosophy maximizes personal freedom by minimizing responsibility to take care of, or refrain from harming, others. It's a splendid system if you have the power to take and hold what you want. It's a horror if you lack such power ... and nobody keeps that kind of power forever, for time and your body will betray you in the end. If practiced by everyone, rational self-interest would produce not a society but anarchy. That is ineffective and therefore undesirable on a large scale, although it is extremely attractive to people who believe they have the power to take advantage of such a system.

One of the drawbacks of rationality is that logic can justify all manner of things that are wicked. Hence the need for counterbalances in emotion and spirituality to remind us that too much selfishness is wrong and destructive.

>>Have you ever actually studied philosophy? It's really not as convoluted as you imply (Kant beside the point...)<<

For my part, yes, including a couple of actual classes. I was only somewhat impressed by it. Some of it is straightforward, some is intricate, some is sublime, and some is just dumb.

>>I sense that we're rather hijacking Ysabet's thread, which was a discussion of mental illness, not philosophy. <<

If folks are interested in philosophy, I have no objection to it. Do you want to keep discussing it here, or would you like me to start a separate thread for it?

>>I think it's rational to acknowledge the fact that we are emotional animals, that we can be fooled and misled, that we can all benefit from scientific skepticism. <<

I agree. Also, emotional and spiritual aspects can be beneficial. We are not minds alone.

>>It's irrational to accept excuses for the suffering of others; we'd all benefit if everyone gets the help that he or she needs.<<

Too true. It frustrates and baffles me that people don't see the connections there -- how widespread suffering and illness harm everyone.

>>For ex., how many victims of PTSD are referred to their chaplains because it's "cheaper" to treat suffering with make-believe than solutions that work? "cheaper" to blame the victims and delegate responsibility to our imaginary friends?<<

I'm not in favor of picking treatment based on how cheap it is, but rather on how effective it is. Sometimes a chaplain can help with PTSD, other times not (and it depends on the chaplain's skill, too). PTSD often entails spiritual trauma; frex, a person whose faith commands "thou shalt not kill" may suffer spiritual injury from killing another human being. If they thinks that their soul is now marred by that killing, no amount of medication is going to fix that, although it may dull awareness of the problem. For spiritual injuries, clerical care is usually required. On the other hoof, someone whose PTSD involves neurochemical damage that makes them shaky and insomniac is unlikely to be helped by spiritual means; a quiet environment and soothing physical activity are required, and possibly chemical assistance.

PTSD is a messy, complicated nightmare of a condition -- for bystanders as well as sufferers. There are no easy assessments and no quick fixes. It's so ugly and scary that it makes people want to sweep it under the rug. That is often fatal for the sufferer. It keeps happening because, for the bystanders, that does make the problem not theirs anymore, unless someone sues them for negligent death.

The military tries very hard to modify people's ethics. It does not always succeed; other times, it succeeds too well. After all, their understanding of the human mind and brain is no more advanced than the health care industry's understanding. And their overall understanding of the human soul is ... rather lacking, which is what the chaplains are there for.

Once someone has learned that certain things are "wrong," those things are difficult or impossible to change. People may do them anyway, particularly with the sort of terrific justifications that the military provides for the wholesale slaughter of other human beings -- but deep down inside, most sane people still believe that killing is wrong. So they tend to be distressed and damaged if they do it; this is a known factor in PTSD. In fact it's on the test for that.

The fact that killing people tends to be injurious to the soul is one reason why so many higher powers have told humans not to do it. Don't stick a fork in the light socket, you'll hurt yourself.

>>I think religion offers a kind of Catch-22, with the "higher" or hired powers jerking people around.<<

That is true of some religions, though not all of the ones I have encountered.

>>You'd think that the omnipotent would be able to pass his/her wisdom down in a way that cannot be mistaken or corrupted by mere mortals.<<

Dude. I think you just identified something that the Omnipotent God can't do. Or at least, demonstrably has not yet figured out how to do.

So far, I'm cool with it. If the medical stuff gets too steep for me, I'll let you know. But I think there are folks in the audience here who would be interested in this stuff. If you want to keep going in this thread, that's fine; if you want me to launch a new one, let me know.

This is very well said.