Mental illness

Post Reply New Topic

Any behavior non conducive to the flourishing (health, happiness, success, &c) of the organism should be deemed ill. Marked deviation from such criteria constitute unambiguous illness. There is no strict black-white contrast between health and illness.

Deviation will not be tolerated. Get ready to be reprogrammed.

I think the endless backstabbing and social intrigue that characterize typical human interaction are non conducive to the flourishing (health, happiness, success, &c) of the organism. This is especially pronounced in the notoriously treacherous realm of romantic relationships.

Therefore, NT's are sick.

No? Of course not. That simply is not how any functional description of sickness has ever worked. You are sick if you are different and dysfunctional.

You make a very good arguement, but I will stand by my point of view for the time being. However, I would like to expand on your points, because they make me consider the metaphysics of medical ethics. Many times, both medical and psychiatric doctors have to consider what is good for the person as an organism vs. what is good for the person as an individual. Although the physical trauma a soldier might suffer could be considered bad for the person as an organism, they still choose to do these things because being a soldier gives them goals, employment, a place to live, and the personal satisfaction or achievement in serving their country. Since the positives of being a soldier for the individual might outweigh the negatives experienced by the organism, the soldier could be considered mentally well, if they are in fact mentally satisfied with being a soldier. It would be easy to determine the physical trauma experienced by a football player would be bad for the person as an organism. However, the sport gives them much the same positives as an individual as the soldier. Both medical and psychiatric fields also have to consider the wellness of the organism vs. the individual when prescribing medications. There are many medications which have adverse mental or physical effects, but if the positives of the medication outweigh the netatives and promote the overall wellness of the person as an organism or individual, then it is considered an ethical choice.

When considering their actions of physical violence, I will have to think on that one some more, but I think the same line of thinking might apply. I may comment more later.

Well, a major difference I would draw between your position and my position, claire333, is that I mostly reject ethics, and see the person as an organism as completely inconsequential, as I think most people would agree that the organism exists for the purposes of the individual, rather than vice versa. A particular problem emerging from mental health issues is separating the individual from the health problem, which is why I highlighted this issue rather than illness in general.

So, most soldiers are ill. Good to know.


Yeah, true. Thank goodness I never used the term, otherwise this might be more questionable.

I thought it was defined in the same way as physical illness - a decline or deterioration from the usual/average state. That is why autism is not a mental illness.

Then you and I certainly might not ever agree on this one. I guess I am not most, since I see the organism as primary. The individual cannot exist without the organism, therefore there are many instances when the wellness of the organism must take prioity. I have to disagree. Some people are born with physical illness; that is their usual state. They are still ill and might even be made well.

Sorry, forgot to add "acting in the interests of the state/society" to "flourishing"...

Then my critique of overly convoluted and counterproductive social machinations typical among most humans still stands.

Ok then, I will stick to the topic of mental health. I agree, to some extent, that the health professional should consider the individual. However, I cannot understand how you would think the organism is inconsequential. Most anyone would conclude, a person with suacidal thoughts and cuts themselves is suffering from mental illness. They might be prescribed a medication which causes them to feel lethargic, gain weight, and suffer from impotance. This medication could make them very unsatisfied as an individual. However, if the physician sees the medication has halted the suicidal thoughts and self-destruction, they could conclude the medication to be sucessful because it is preserving the organism.

Last edited by claire-333 on 04 Feb 2009, 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think most people should be "fixed"; but I can't have everything I want

I thought that some illnesses could be held forever, from birth to death. If autism is not a mental illness, then why is aspergers a syndrome?

Because that is the nomenclature that is attached to it; I don't think such terms are really used systematically.

There are also occasional calls for a cure for autism, so I don't think it is simply nomenclature but rather reflective of some thinking.

Well, yes, autism has long been and still largely is viewed as a mental illness, not distinguished from schizophrenia until several decades ago as I recall.

They are both in the DSM which is a book of mental "disorders". Though I am not sure I like the term disorder any more than illness.

I would consider "disorder" to be the same as "illness" particularly when talking about mental conditions.