We’ve got diagnoses for everything when it comes to people. We’ve got a diagnosis for those who like to diagnose too much. We’ve got diseases defined so broadly large sections of the population fits into any given pathology if one wants to split hairs long enough.
When exactly is it that we can say, “This person has a problem?” At what point is it a disease? Isn’t it all simply a matter of perception anyway?
Whaddya think?
Schizophrenia is one of those things that always happens to someone else.
The ones in power & prestige positions whether gov’t or in the medical world are the ones whose defintions get put on paper and become laws.
I personally think throwing your whole day away doing something you hate to get money at the end of the day . . . when the day is over, is a sure sign of mental retardation.
That’s brilliant, completely, and utterly brilliant!
In Freudian terms, it is when the ego cannot carry out the demands or restraints trasmitted by the super-ego, and also when the ego cannot control the energy emitting from the id. But the super-ego is largely conditioned by society, so in reality, when someone transgresses a moral code of some description too often, then they are perceived to be ‘mentally ill’. But moral codes are human constructs, so mental illness doesn’t really exist.
So we might say mental illness is really an inability to adhere to or comply with the mores of a given society?
I would say that is spot on.
Freud wrote a bit concerning the connection between the behaviour of the mentally ill and savages, or people who haven’t entered modernity. Both have eratic and unpredictable behaviour, this is because the super-ego remains to a large extent undeveloped in both. An undevepoled super-ego means that societal mores have not become introjected properly, hence they act more on impulse.
In my opinion, the mentally ill are an excellent example of exposing the shaky presuppositions that society is built upon. Modernity likes to have everything in its place where it can be measures to the utmost degree so everything can become predicted in advance. The mentally ill make a mockery of this, they show that they have traces of the human spirit left in them as they are unwilling and unable to conform to robotic-like behaviour.
form what I can understand, the diffrince between a condition and an illness is simply severity, a person can be eccentric and that is fine by people, but when they go to far and cause harm to others that’s when it becomes an illness.
other than that the classifacations are entirely a matter of oppinion.
=D> So shall we all be committed? Even your dream jobs become droning after a month. 
2:219. They ask you about intoxicants and gambling. Say: “In them is great harm, and a benefit for the people; but their harm is greater than their benefit.†And they ask you how much are they to give, Say: “The excess.†It is thus that God clarifies for you the revelations that you may think.
Someone is “mentally ill†when he acts or behaves in ways that are detrimental to his well-being, despite his better judgment.
So does it mean that choosing the nearer good ( against my better judgment) instead of the greater good makes me a mentally ill person because it ‘is detrimental to my well-being’?
“Nearer good”, “Greater good”?
These are Humeirah-isms I am not familair with.
Comes from the principle of Utilitarianism. ( check out Bentham, JS Mill, Epicurius, Nozick on the subject).
One of the fallacies of the ‘calculus of felicity’ upon which the basis of rules can be formulated is that very often people choose the nearer good instead of the greater good against their better judgment.
Anyway, maybe some other time. You must be tired.
It’s a disease when someone cannot function without treatment.
If you cannot function, wouldn’t you be dead?
not if the herd mentality has anything to say…
-Imp
Hmm. By that definition, I suppose soldiers would be mentally ill. Lest everyone think I’m needlessly splitting hairs here, I’m not. We treat these things as diseases with medicine. I’m trying to figure out when it is exactly that it can be said to be a disease. The best I have come up with is that when a person cannot accept a fundamental truth (about the widely agreed on pieces of reality)and begins to “act out” through denial or some other mechanism in some severe way, they are mentally sick.
I disagree, there is no a priori law that claims harming others is an illness, all classifications of human conduct are human constructs.
But John S. Mill called the situation you described above as the ‘harm principle’. There has been much debate over what constitutes ‘harm’ to another.
Mental illness is a difference in degree not in kind.
This simply means, that in my view, everyone is in some, way, shape or form to some degree mentally ill.
But what does it mean to be mentally ill?
This is not an easy question to answer. Perhaps it can be regarded as irrationality. When people carry with them irrational and illogical thoughts they can be said to be mentally ill. Obviously it is more severe for some people than others. Now when one considers that it is impossible to know everything than it would be safe to assume everyine carries wrong and erroneous views. This can be regarded as mental illness and supports the idea that everyone is mentally ill to some degree.
Another way of defining mental illness is by equating it with neurosis. Neurosis results when we repress some kind of urge or desire. Now when we consider that no one gets everything that they want be it because it is illicit, illegal or unattainable it can be said that everyone is being forced to deal with repression of some sort and therefore neurosis. Therefore everyone can be deemed mentally ill in this view as well.