addicition

ok…so I typed this in the philosphy forum and it’s gone. Ican’t find it. Ok so I’ll just copy and paste it from word…wierd…

Most philosophies are thought up without attention to the the little glitches that human nature can throw in. One biggie: addiction. In existentialism, this is perhaps the lowest state of mankind. However, I would be interested to hear your take on the matter. Addiction: what is it, why does it occur? Maybe our substitution for a deity? Can it ever be truly eradicated from one’s psyche? How do addictions (i.e. drugs v. reading v. food) differ? Do they?

This has always been on my mind, since many relatives have a thing for alcohol. This brings another interesting point up: Is it in one’s nature (genetics)?

This can also be applied to depression, since clinical studies show that it is inherent in many. Clinical is not philosophical, yet should be considered.

Boy are we lucky…I’m at work and I still have the Word doc of my post as well. I think it was deleted because the topic is more psychology than philosophy, which is probably why I had the confidence to respond to it…

Here’ goes:

I believe there is a difference between chemically dependent addictions and psychological addictions. A psychological addiction can also be a chemical dependency, but I think there are also psychological addictions that are reinforced by repetitive behavior but inherently not chemical, which is to say that the addict would not experience physical withdrawal from the behavior. Reading or watching too much TV would fall into this category. I don’t think chemical dependency is limited to substance abuse either if you consider the actions and reactions of “chemicals” produced naturally in the body. Examples of this would be sex, thrill seeking and addictive relationships. The addict would develop an increasing tolerance for these as well, needing an increase in frequency or desiring more elaborate and extreme circumstances to achieve the same emotional/physiological effect.

Can it ever be truly eradicated from one’s psyche? To be a dry drunk or practice abstinence will not reverse the ingrained addictive personality or diminish the desire.

-you may get more response in this area anyway…

it was not deleted, it was moved out of the philosophy section…

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=143352

-Imp

Well I hope you keep it here in the psychology section Imp, because addiction can be explained through psychology (and my class in University has done this for me already).

Now in order to understand addiction, you must first know how the human brain/body works. If you are unaware, I will attempt to give a quick lesson on the matters.

The brain is made up of trillions of neurons. Each one of these neurons controls a certain role in the human body. There are those neurons which moderate the chemical equilibrium of the body, and provide natural chemicals that your body produces. However, when a neuron is unactive for a long time (when it isn’t firing much electrically) it will eventually die. For a quick example, if you do not recall a memory very often, the neurons which store the information for that memory will die eventually, and you will forget that memory. The same goes for the chemical-producing neurons in our brain (know that they do not produce the chemicals themselves, but send signals to the parts of your body that do create the chemicals and tell them when to create or stop production of a certain chemical).

So let’s say you smoke cigarettes, which are proven to be addictive. This is because when you smoke a cigarette, you are putting in chemicals into your body. There are certain chemicals in your body that are similar to those found in a cigarette… so, when you start smoking, your body is flooded with an unnatural amount of a certain chemical (which gives you that feeling that comes with substances such as drugs). Smoking though, has reprocussions, and I’m not simply talking about the harmful aspects to your body. Because there is more of a certain chemical in your body than normal, and because the body seeks to be at a constant state of normalcy (or remain in a state of homeostasis), it then sends signals to the neuron to stop firing to produce the normal chemicals that your body produces on it’s own, simply because there is too much. If you repeat this process often (habitual smoking) eventually the neurons will fire less because your body is constantly being supplied with the chemical. After time, the neuron which created the natural chemical in your body which is mimicked by the chemical found in a cigarette, will begin to die due to lack of useage. That is why, when you try to quit, the neurons that once created the natural ‘good feeling’ chemicals in your body have either died or are dying, and so no longer supply your body with these chemicals. That is why it takes a certain amount of time for your body to get over an addiction, simply because it is trying to rebuild those dead neurons so that your body can properly create the normal chemicals again.

I hope that explains your question about chemical addictions (such as drugs). I know more about the other forms of addiction that you asked about, but I have talked enough for now :smiley: Hopefully someone else will be able to answer your question. If not, I’ll check back later and help you with those questions as well.

You have provided an excellent biochemical explanation of addictions, but as you are studying psychology, of course you are aware that you have descrbied only one element of addictions (a very important one). Having been trained in and counseled via numerous orientations (in no particular order, psychodynamic, interpersonal, CBT, humanistic/client-centred, emotion focused (which borrows heavily from gestalt), process-experiential (which is a variation of humanistic), and “focusing” (Eugene Gendlin’s brain child)), I have seen many other explanations for addictions (some more credible than others). The important thing to remember with the biochemical explanation is that it contributes to the addiction but is not the entire story, as not all people who take the same amount of a drug will react the same–people’s tolerances are different, as are their abilities to quit, the effect or withdrawal, etc., and not all of that is explained via biology/chemistry. Moreover, there is much research on correlations between certain personality styles, histories, and so on, and the risk of becoming an addict, whether it be drugs, gambling, sex, TV, etc…

Again, I agree with your fine description of the chemical process; I just want to make sure that we don’t reduce everything to a biological explanation (even if biology contributes strongly to A B or C).

Hah, ah yes of course, being a Psychology student I know all too well about how both nature and nurture play a role in the behaviours and characteristics. This goes along with addictions and their role on us as well. I decided I would give the biological background behind addictions, simply because not everyone knows the complexity of what happens when someone purposefully takes in addictive substances. Personally, I think most of the public is becoming more aware of the psychological aspect, so I decided not to touch on this issue given that it is becoming more mainstream these days.

Yes, I hope some people when they read my biological explanation did not take that as proof that certain abuses are merely biological in nature, but that it has a shared relationship with the psychological aspect of addictions. Thank you for pointing this out to people psyque.

These days, the number of psychologists who totally discount biological explanations for psychological phenomena (and who abhor any kind of medical intervention for such matters) is tiny (thank goodness). However, I have had so many patients/clients and students actually believe that the biochemical/medicinal route is the only way to go, so red flags pop up when I see things that might contribute to such thinking, hence my post. You are right, 18, that the psychological side of addictions (and other things) is becoming more widely known, but it’s still fighting an uphill battle (heck, I remember a few years back when one of the top psychology researchers came up to my presentation at the APA Annual Convention; I congratulated him on a recent article written by his “rival,” in which he (the rival) essentially threw in the towel re. one issue in their longstanding battle re. ____. He laughed but said “I can’t celebrate too much on my “victory.” Have you read my new book? In it, I basically give up on my _____ theory of _____ and argue that all cases of ____ are caused by BIOLOGICAL factors.”)

So, just doing my part…:wink:

PS
I am using “____” b/c I don’t know how comfortable any of the parties involved would be with my sharing this anecdote (which should be fine in its highly edited form)…

Do not get me started on how the pharmaceutical companies are jumping on this situation. Frankly, I am ashamed that we have become a nation that believes that taking a pill will solve a problem. Yes, the medical field is wonderful, in that they help to solve so many uncontrollable or unpreventable cases, however, it even depresses ME to see how we are trying to cure so many forms of depression with medication, when there are perhaps more beneficial alternatives. If only people took the time to become critical of their own lives or seek some help, they would not have to become so reliant on these ‘cures in a capsule’. Ah, but now I see I have gone full circle, back into a discussion of ‘addictions’ once again :wink:

LOL… Ah, we are all bound to re-think our own approaches from time to time, and I suppose it shows an open mind to do so, even if our ego is at stake. It is all well and good to take an empirical look at the world I suppose, so long as we remember the power that sociological factors have on us, an acknowledge the fact that we are indeed a social being. I say “Good for your collegue” for taking an alternate perspective on the issues, so long as they are well founded.