Mental Illness and Thomas Szasz

Post Reply New Topic

Mmm, I think that mental illness is a metaphor only in the sense that cardiovascular fitness is a metaphor.

The brain is the organic locus, the mind describes a function arising from the locus (much like a motor-vehicle is a mechanical locus capable of producing the function 'momentum'). Mental illness refers then to dysfunction that is attributed to the locus of the brain in the same way cardiovascular unfitness refers to dysfunction arising from the cardiovascular system.

As it happens behavior is how all disease is understood. Symptoms of physical injury for instance are bodily behaviors and even direct observations of the processes or snapshots of them (ie X-rays) are based on correlating expected behavior (of the process systems) with observed behavior.

Lets see if I know what I have in mind for this:

Ya, but without this kind of stuff in the disease model, I would get no social security money.

These social security benifits include medicade (medical coupons).

With these medical coupons that they offer, its cheaper to pay for most medical needs: seeing a doctor or a psychotherapist and even emergency room visits for suicidal idealization.

Personally, it has been a recent thing i.e within a couple of years that I have went to see a case-worker who has helped me a little with referals and resources. I have benefited greatly from a program for people with mental illnesses and drug-abuse related problems that is ran within a particular church which was found by my case-worker. I requested for it but I also wonder if it would be mentioned to me anyways as time went by.

And for some people, its much more difficult to get on SSI then others, though.

&

And for the thing about being dehumanized as a disease because of something like AS:

I think I know how to deal with that...

There is a strong contrast between "intelligent" and "unintelligent": let me clarify.

Think of it this way: the way that people normally think and perceive things is diseased because of its destructive or lame-ass quality.

It would also be helpful to learn the role of the neurotransmitters and how neurons transmitt signals...

CNS drugs and some more than others can just make you forget things or impair some other aspect of how you normally perceive things.

So what is going on in this world that is called "typical" or normal?:

As we have put here, some children wrongfully take medication like a dose of prozac or the psychostimulant ritalin to get them to go to their miserable school and behave themselves(be doped up) because the schools and the doctors and the psychiatrists are a bunch of ret*ds.

What you should be doing is knowing what the body and the brain need to function: nutrience. Personally, I like the Airborne liquid dissolvable tablets.

Think of it this way: by not putting a bunch of junk in your body and brain or going through the process of quitting all the psychiatric drugs that you loathe to take, you are raising your I.Q several times more than the doctors and psychiatrists. So you raise your I.Q several times more than them with your new vitamin and mineral brain "medication" and then say "f*k you all".

I agree with the quote about pscyhiatry being a psuedo science, and a psuedo religion, but hey, some people are a danger to themselves and to others, what are we supposed to do about people like that?

There's only two paths you can take if you have an illness (physical or mental), you can go for faith (prayer, shamans etc) or if you fail to choose faith you get the 'default' path, you go to science.

Ha.

Asperger and Kanner were both psychiatrists (you know those guys..., those guys who defined autism and Asperger's disorder). It'd be pretty hypocritical to label yourself with Asperger's disorder and then question the validity on whether it is a mental disorder or not when the very book you're diagnosed from calls it as such.

A comment I'd like to address re the Szasz idea, because it's crucial:

"Asperger and Kanner were both psychiatrists (you know those guys..., those guys who defined autism and Asperger's disorder). It'd be pretty hypocritical to label yourself with Asperger's disorder and then question the validity on whether it is a mental disorder or not when the very book you're diagnosed from calls it as such."

There is much debate on the subject, I want to state that I don't have the answers, only theories. When I post about Szasz, aside from his arguments against forced state institutionalization, I post with the intention that people will look into it for themselves, as opposed to accepting it as gospel. I am personally unsure of Szasz's strict seperation of mind and brain (I believe there's interaction.) It's a complicated subject that can't be fully explored in a thread, or even a series of threads. But I point to Szasz because of his emphasis on defining our terms, his tracing of the history of psychiatry to its religious origins, which is important in defining terms, and his debunking of certain beliefs that have been harmful to many individuals in the name of a supposed greater good.

Re the quote: something I've personally been wrestling with, because of the Szasian influence. But not because I believe I'm a hypocrite, personally, but because of philosophical/ethical issues. I'm very influenced by Ayn Rand's Objectivism, but I think a case could be made that many of her ideas would naturally appeal to autistic people (the very word autistic jives with her "virtue of selfishness," to be glib.) I'm working on research on the relation between the two, but for now, let's just say that I think there's something there.

Anyway, first: there's the issue of what is a disorder, as previously discussed. Some people believe they have the conditions to be labeled autistic or having asperger's syndrome, but not believe that it's a disorder. They could see it as a benefit, or, they could see the neurotypical as disordered.

Secong: It should be noted that the terms MIND and BRAIN are differentiated in Szasz's work. This is the CRUCIAL point. Szasz does NOT deny the existence of neurobiological disorders. What he says are the diseases of the brain are not necessarily diseases of the mind. Space does not permit his full argument, but it's available on line and in books and szasz.com for those interested in following up.
While I don't fully agree with him that the brain has no influence on mental states whatsover (and here I may be oversimplying too much), his greatest strength is the defense of those with differences, either biological or mental, against authorities who may want to "institutionalize" them for being "undesirable," while, at the same time, fighting those who use mental illness as an excuse to commit crimes.

Back to the quote, if one accepts the existence of autism as a neurological disorder, that is not the same as a mental disorder. (To understand this, you have to really define "mind", and see the fuzziness of this concept throughout time. Mind grew out of "spirit", which was disassociated from body via Plato, Christ, Descartes, etc.) Mind is your thoughts, ideas, beliefs, etc. If autism is indeed not neurological (which I strongly doubt), then autistic behavior is "mental," i.e. based on thoughts, beliefs, teachings, language structures, etc. If someone tries to communicate but is inhibited by a brain disorder, that is not the same as someone who refuses to communicate out of feelings of superiority or an anti-social notion of individualism. It could be hypocritical if one did not believe in mental disorders but claimed that one had a mental disorder, but more than that, it would be a contradiction. As for the DSM, it's like the bible: written by men based on current beliefs, not necessarily hard science and fact. In order to clear this contradiction, the concepts of mind and brain, etc, have to be objectively definable, not fuzzy concepts that change meaning with the whims or beliefs of whoever is editing that year.

Or, rather, Szasz represented by Jeffery Schaler:

"Look in a standard textbook of pathology and see if autism is listed there.
If it is not listed, ask a pathologist why it is not included. If it is
included, then autism refers to a disease. There are specific physical
signs that meet the nosological criteria for disease classification. I
would be surprised if these are well defined and predict the label of
"autism".

All behavior is freely chosen, there is no such thing as involuntary
behavior. Behavior means mode of conduct; deportment. A seizure, for
example, is not considered behavior. It is a neurological reflex. Autism
is generally regarded as a developmental disorder, not a mental illness or a
disease. Children labeled autistic have difficulties learning certain
cognitive tasks; they generally do not display the kind of psychological,
emotional, and social competence necessary for self-sufficience, autonomy.
Do they do things they want to do? Of course. Does their behavior seem
irrational, self destructive, etc. at times? Certainly. Can behavior be a
disease? Never. Diseases are only of the body. This said, I am no
specialist on what is labeled autism."

Thanks for writing.

Jeff Schaler