Discussion Am I just deluding myself?

[Epsilon0]

I came across an article that made my jaw drop, because it contained a sentence which completely contradicts my view on suicide.

First of all, I must say that the quote below comes from KI, the top medical university in Sweden, which is at the forefront of medical research. So, as far as sources go, this one is as reliable as they come. Hence the jaw drop.


Everyone who tries to take their own life must be sick. True! There's almost always some form of mental illness behind suicide.


Oh, the vague, all-encompasing expression "some form of" made me pause in astonishment. Every fiber of my being disagrees with this quote. And yet, it is posted on KI and based on studies carried out at Oxford.

Who am I to even begin to disagree with such giants?


What if the quote is correct, and I am in the wrong? What if I am deluding myself? What if I have no true understanding whatsoever of my self and my desire to end my life, because it is all the result of my mind being "ill"? What if they are right? What then?

Does it even matter? Well, it does... I need to believe that wanting to ctb stems from a reasonable analysis of my life, and not from a faulty short-circuit inside my head. I shudder at the thought that I may be neither lucid nor able to make autunomous decisions... What then? There's no winning, is there?

Does this make any sense to you?

 

[Backwood_tilt]

Who am I to even begin to disagree with such giants?


What if the quote is correct, and I am in the wrong? What if I am deluding myself? What if I have no true understanding whatsoever of my self and my desire to end my existence, because it is all the result of my mind being "ill"? What if they are right? What then?

It is just one person's opinion. Medicine used to think lobotomies, vibrators, and prescribing heroin was a good idea. Not to discount the science of medicine, but it is still obviously lacunary and i dont think you should give them too much power over your own worldview.

It's YOUR life you are living, not theirs.

 

[Epsilon0]

It is just one person's opinion. Medicine used to think lobotomies, vibrators, and prescribing heroin was a good idea. Not to discount the science of medicine, but it is still obviously lacunary and i dont think you should give them too much power over your own worldview.

It's YOUR life you are living, not theirs.

"Not give them too much power over my own worldview"... I like this reply. A lot. Thank you for writing it.

 

[Lostandfound7]

Hello Love. Wow! As someone who has contemplated n has come so close to suicide, esp as of lately, as much as it hurts me to think that I could b "sick" ( which I think is a horrible way to define myself n others), I will have to agree that there is some part of my brain that is "not healthy," due to trauma. In most cases, persons who see suicide as an option, have been dealt some sort of trauma in their life (rape, abuse, depression, loss,etc).I have yet to see a person with a "good" life, no physical challenges, etc, contemplate or commit suicide. Hence, the brain, when dealt trauma (whether physical or mental), becomes defunct, for lack of a better word, n unhealthy..For example, after Aaron Hernandez' (football player-think that's his name) suicide, his brain was examined n found to have significant damage from trauma, which they say could have had a direct effect on his homicidal and suicidal tendencies. So, I would agree that my brain is not totally healthy, n in some form, sick. I dont believe that the option of suicide is the "norm" ..*shrugs* Many here might disagree n that's fine..Like I said, it's my opinion..

 

[waterbottleman]

*shrug*

I don't pretend to speak for anyone else, but I know I'm mentally ill and I know it's my mental state that is causing me to be suicidal.

A lifetime of being ignored, misunderstood, alone, and unwanted has damaged my mental state to a point that I have no hope for life getting better for me. I have no hope that anyone will ever love me.

All I have to look "forward to" is working some 9-5 job that is soul sucking, getting old, and being alone. Yeah no thanks, I think being dead is a rational better alternative than that.

I'll be just as much of a ghost when I'm dead as I am being alive.

 

[Epsilon0]

@Lostandfound7

Yes, I understand what you mean. Of course trauma can lead to mental illness. But, what if no trauma is involved?

Please feel free to speak your mind, don't worry about people disagreeing. Noone has complete monopoly over the truth. That's why we discuss these issues, to shed light on them from various perspectives.

*shrug*

I don't pretend to speak for anyone else, but I know I'm mentally ill and I know it's my mental state that is causing me to be suicidal.

A lifetime of being ignored, misunderstood, alone, and unwanted has damaged my mental state to a point that I have no hope for life getting better for me. I have no hope that anyone will ever love me.

All I have to look "forward to" is working some 9-5 job that is soul sucking, getting old, and being alone. Yeah no thanks, I think being dead is a rational better alternative than that.

I'll be just as much of a ghost when I'm dead as I am being alive.

My first reaction was to hit the LIKE button, but it somehow seemed inappropiate, if you know what I mean. Constantly feeling unwanted and unloved must be torture... I feel for you...

 

[Lostandfound7]

*shrug*

I don't pretend to speak for anyone else, but I know I'm mentally ill and I know it's my mental state that is causing me to be suicidal.

A lifetime of being ignored, misunderstood, alone, and unwanted has damaged my mental state to a point that I have no hope for life getting better for me. I have no hope that anyone will ever love me.

All I have to look "forward to" is working some 9-5 job that is soul sucking, getting old, and being alone. Yeah no thanks, I think being dead is a rational better alternative than that.

I'll be just as much of a ghost when I'm dead as I am being alive.

I TOTALLY agree and appreciate ur honesty..It's just heartbreaking n as much as I feel lost, to read what ur saying is so painful to hear..Sending u love
Hey @Epsilon0 , I'm sure a therapist would probe deeper into past experiences,fam history, etc to find out what would cause this "abnormality". I have friends n acquaintances n have heard stories of ppl who have endured some horrific experiences, but they endure n make the best of it, n become successful. Then there r some who have been thru a fraction of someone else,but find it difficult to bear n go on,thus ending their life..I guess it all boils down to how much u r able to endure, ur support system, faith, beliefs, etc ,somewhat. Maybe? But suicide for me, is not a "normal" option..
Also, if there is a turn of events for good n the person gets all that they desired (health, spouse, $$,etc) n the source of their depression is now gone, does the person now have a full desire to live or do they often go back, despite things being good now, to their suicidal tendencies? If they do, then I would lean toward the side of it being a mental issue, nothing externally can placate or dissuade them from taking their life...Depression/Suicidal tendencies feels like a dark abyss that u just can't seem to get out of..

 

[Deleted-User-0]

Let's say that statement is correct I don't think it would change a thing.
The main thing is that science is still unable to deal with the vast majority of mental illnesses. They simply are clueless how 100 billion Neurons are working together in our brain.
There will be a day in future that they could reverse Engineer this complex process to fix many issues including mental illnesses but until then they better shut up and stop making such big, general and absurd statements.

 

[Broken Chimera]

Coming from someone who probably doesn't know the meaning of a bad day, hard life, trauma, poverty, abuse, chronic pain or watched people they loved die. I never hear crap like that from people who's suffered. I only hear it from people who sees life through rose colored glasses.

Just because he's at a top level medical university doesn't mean he's right or that he knows everything. Don't let it get to you.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

@Epsilon0

Stand back! I've got this!

I'm holding up the shield of Michel Foucault's Madness and Civilization against this tyranny. Madness wasn't always mental illness. It was historically respected and even admired. It was criminalized in France, Britain, and the colonies/US during a 150-year Western world financial crisis in the Enlightenment (edit: Age of Reason) and pathologized as prisons, hôpitals, transformed into mental institutions. Admittedly, Foucault's brand of historianism is almost as much maligned in Marxist academic circles as Jordan Peterson is in my circle (open to new members). But Foucault called out power for its bullshit, and he is the father of discourse analysis, so I mostly respect him (although I'm troubled he was an advocate of legal pedophilia in France, and so was Barthes. My heroes stood on feet of Play-Doh. Grrr.).

With this shield, I hand you the Sword of Rational Suicide, à la the Stoic giants, in order to defeat disinformation from the platform of their formidable shoulders:

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/sencea-letters-of-the-right-to-suicide.28783/post-549967

My work here is done.

 

[Lostandfound7]

@Epsilon0

Stand back! I've got this!

I'm holding up the shield of Michel Foucault's Madness and Civilization against this tyranny. Madness wasn't always mental illness. It was historically respected and even admired. It was criminalized in France, Britain, and the colonies/US during a 150-year Western world financial crisis in the Enlightenment, and pathologized as prisons, hôpitals, transformed into mental institutions. Admittedly, Foucault's brand of historianism is almost as much maligned in Marxist academic circles as Jordan Peterson is in my circle (open to new members). But Foucault called out power for its bullshit, and he is the father of discourse analysis, so I mostly respect him (although I'm troubled he was an advocate of legal pedophilia in France, and so was Barthes. My heroes stood on feet of Play-Doh. Grrr.).

With this shield, I hand you the Sword of Rational Suicide, à la the Stoic giants, in order to defeat disinformation from the platform of their formidable shoulders:

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/sencea-letters-of-the-right-to-suicide.28783/post-549967

My work here is done.

1)OK first, what yr was this?
2)N he was an "advocate of pedophilia"?
3)Madness was admired??
4)WTH???
5)Ummmm...no ty
IMO, anyone who would "admire" a mental illness, is clearly insane...I have a few family members n friends who struggle with mental illness ,have been institutionalized, on meds for life, having a hard time holding down a job due to mental condition, can't have healthy relationships due to mental condition, having a hard time functioning in society due to mental illness. Anyone who would "admire" their life, is in need of more medication n therapy than they are..Mental illness is painful.There is nothing glamorous or enviable about it.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

1)OK first, what yr was this?
2)N he was an "advocate of pedophilia"?
3)Madness was admired??
4)WTH???
5)Ummmm...no ty
IMO, anyone who would "admire" a mental illness, is clearly insane...I have a few family members n friends who struggle with mental illness ,have been institutionalized, on meds for life, having a hard time holding down a job due to mental condition, can't have healthy relationships due to mental condition, having a hard time functioning in society due to mental illness. Anyone who would "admire" their life, is in need of more medication n therapy than they are..Mental illness is painful.There is nothing glamorous or enviable about it.

I get how this can seem provocative without having engaged with the book. I'll do my best to answer your questions/concerns and try not to derail the thread.

Please note I was speaking in my post to @Epsilon0 with reference to another thread in which we've discussed common interests with regard, in part, to French philosophers who have influenced us both. 2) In the 1970s, several influential French philosophers petitioned the French government to legalize pedophilia. It was quite the scandal, and rightfully so. In France, philosophers were/are revered. A movie star was the first major US celebrity to die of AIDS; in Britain, it was a rock star; in France, it was Foucault. Some very heavy philosophy hitters signed the petition in France, it was and still is a scandal. I struggle to not throw out the baby with the bathwater, to engage with their philosophies about power, but not children. They claimed to have sought to empower children. You and I agree that point of view is, to put it lightly, flawed. From an academic standpoint, if I claim Foucault's arguments empower @Epsilon0 , I have to acknowledge his academic and social critics and weaknesses.

1), 3), 4), 5):

Madness and Civilization - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Wikipedia article explains this much better than I, if you truly want the answers to your questions, it is a good read.

I'll briefly address 5: In my understanding of discourse theory, you were speaking from a framework of mental illness, which was created by psychiatry and psychology. It is political. Speaking in their language validates and reinforces their power over people they deemed as criminals and then patients -- people who had previously had a place in society, literature, and art. Such a framework says people who are suicidal are mentally ill. It slapped a label on @Epsilon0 that made her question herself -- her identity, and her right to define herself. I called bullshit and Foucault has my back. I pointed out potential holes in the shield that enemies will try to strike at.

Foucault studied how power influences language, such as "madness," "mental illness" (and elsewhere, "gay"). He explored surveillance long before there were cameras and biotechnology, and warned about government control. In the book I referenced, he pointed out how labels about madness and mental illness created people who previously did not exist in society -- the mentally ill -- and separated them from society, made them a spectacle to be feared and hated, and were used as pawns to control society by example.

No leader is perfect. MLK screwed around on his wife. Gandhi slept fully clothed with his naked virgin niece to test his dedication to celibacy. I hate these things, but I love the results of their life works. I feel the same about Foucault and his contemporary who I mentioned, Roland Barthes, a critic of the cultural myths we take as fact but actually enslave us to unseen powers, such as the myth of mental illness.

I hope this addressed your questions. I recognize you were upset and I acknowledge that you were, and that you have reason, from within your lived experience, to be upset. I did not intend to poke at your hurts, or anyone's. The theory I introduced here is potentially on your side, but certainly not against you; nor am I.

 

[Lostandfound7]

I get how this can seem provocative without having engaged with the book. I'll do my best to answer your questions/concerns and try not to derail the thread.

Please note I was speaking in my post to @Epsilon0 with reference to another thread in which we've discussed common interests with regard, in part, to French philosophers who have influenced us both. 2) In the 1970s, several influential French philosophers petitioned the French government to legalize pedophilia. It was quite the scandal, and rightfully so. In France, philosophers were/are revered. A movie star was the first major US celebrity to die of AIDS; in Britain, it was a rock star; in France, it was Foucault. Some very heavy philosophy hitters signed the petition in France, it was and still is a scandal. I struggle to not throw out the baby with the bathwater, to engage with their philosophies about power, but not children. They claimed to have sought to empower children. You and I agree that point of view is, to put it lightly, flawed. From an academic standpoint, if I claim Foucault's arguments empower @Epsilon0 , I have to acknowledge his academic and social critics and weaknesses.

1), 3), 4), 5):

Madness and Civilization - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Wikipedia article explains this much better than I, if you truly want the answers to your questions, it is a good read.

I'll briefly address 5: In my understanding of discourse theory, you were speaking from a framework of mental illness, which was created by psychiatry and psychology. It is political. Speaking in their language validates and reinforces their power over people they deemed as criminals and then patients -- people who had previously had a place in society, literature, and art. Such a framework says people who are suicidal are mentally ill.

Foucault studied how power influences language, such as "madness," "mental illness" (and elsewhere, "gay"). He explored surveillance long before there were cameras and biotechnology, and warned about government control. In the book I referenced, he pointed out how labels about madness and mental illness created people who previously did not exist in society -- the mentally ill -- and separated them from society, made them a spectacle to be feared and hated, and were used as pawns to control society by example.

No leader is perfect. MLK screwed around on his wife. Gandhi slept fully clothed with his naked virgin niece to test his dedication to celibacy. I hate these things, but I love the results of their life works. I feel the same about Foucault and his contemporary who I mentioned, Roland Barthes, a critic of the cultural myths we take as fact but actually enslave us to unseen powers, such as the myth of mental illness.

I hope this addressed your questions. I recognize you were upset and I acknowledge that you were, and that you have reason, from within your lived experience, to be upset. I did not intend to poke at your hurts, or anyone's. The theory I introduced here is potentially on your side, but certainly not against you; nor am I.

Got u! Difference of opinions but it's all Love!

 

[faust]

Well, delusions always take place. But these are not your delusions. The whole science is based on assumptions and conclusions. The conclusions are made after observations and depending on an angle of observations, the conclusions are different. We do remember that years ago homosexuals were treated as sick people in some parts of our world. As well as lobotomy was a part of magic healing of mentally ill patients. Plus when you defend the dissertation of doctoral, you can say that ham is bad for health and that it is good for health. You will defend your dissertation anyway. The only thing they need of you is a few bulletproof arguments. Nothing scientific should be recognized an absolute truth. All depends on the angle from which observations are made.

 

[SettOne1994]

It is just one person's opinion. Medicine used to think lobotomies, vibrators, and prescribing heroin was a good idea. Not to discount the science of medicine, but it is still obviously lacunary and i dont think you should give them too much power over your own worldview.

It's YOUR life you are living, not theirs.

watch your mouth about heroin. medicine was a perl for that time lol

 

[HadEnough1974]

No

I came across an article that made my jaw drop, because it contained a sentence which completely contradicts my view on suicide.

First of all, I must say that the quote below comes from KI, the top medical university in Sweden, which is at the forefront of medical research. So, as far as sources go, this one is as reliable as they come. Hence the jaw drop.


Everyone who tries to take their own life must be sick. True! There's almost always some form of mental illness behind suicide.


Oh, the vague, all-encompasing expression "some form of" made me pause in astonishment. Every fiber of my being disagrees with this quote. And yet, it is posted on KI and based on studies carried out at Oxford.

Who am I to even begin to disagree with such giants?


What if the quote is correct, and I am in the wrong? What if I am deluding myself? What if I have no true understanding whatsoever of my self and my desire to end my life, because it is all the result of my mind being "ill"? What if they are right? What then?

Does it even matter? Well, it does... I need to believe that wanting to ctb stems from a reasonable analysis of my life, and not from a faulty short-circuit inside my head. I shudder at the thought that I may be neither lucid nor able to make autunomous decisions... What then? There's no winning, is there?

Does this make any sense to you?

Not necessarily mental illness but perhaps a negative outlook on life, perhaps a personality disorder, perhaps living in a war zone, perhaps family dysfunction, perhaps homelessness, a person with a terminal illness who doesn't want to continue to get worse.

Is there a high correlation between "mental health issues" and suicide, I would say yes. Forget the term mentally ill. Unresolved Childhood trauma can lead to mental health issues. At the end of the day, it's your life and your decision. The only reason you're alive is because your father fucked your mother and 9 month later you pooped out of your mothers vagina. You had no say in the process!

 

[Jean4]

How about this from this Oxford Grad.

I believe everyone on this planet has some form of mental illness. Show me one person who is 100 percent perfect with NO issues, and I have a bridge to sell you.

Not everyone who has Cancer will loose their appetite. But it is a symptom some have.

Not everyone who is mentally ill is suicidal. However, it is a symptom some have.

We are human beings. All unique. Like snowflakes, no two are the same. To lump everyone into one category is not only dangerous, but as a therapist, unethical.

Don't worry about studies. They are a guide, but not exclusive to everyone. You are unique. You problems are unique to you.

 

[S1mpleme]

I came across an article that made my jaw drop, because it contained a sentence which completely contradicts my view on suicide.

First of all, I must say that the quote below comes from KI, the top medical university in Sweden, which is at the forefront of medical research. So, as far as sources go, this one is as reliable as they come. Hence the jaw drop.


Everyone who tries to take their own life must be sick. True! There's almost always some form of mental illness behind suicide.


Oh, the vague, all-encompasing expression "some form of" made me pause in astonishment. Every fiber of my being disagrees with this quote. And yet, it is posted on KI and based on studies carried out at Oxford.

Who am I to even begin to disagree with such giants?


What if the quote is correct, and I am in the wrong? What if I am deluding myself? What if I have no true understanding whatsoever of my self and my desire to end my life, because it is all the result of my mind being "ill"? What if they are right? What then?

Does it even matter? Well, it does... I need to believe that wanting to ctb stems from a reasonable analysis of my life, and not from a faulty short-circuit inside my head. I shudder at the thought that I may be neither lucid nor able to make autunomous decisions... What then? There's no winning, is there?

Does this make any sense to you?

Pfff... then we are all sick. Everyone had thought about suicide at least once in life, but some people think about it often than the others, and some of them attempt and even been successful. Doctors are so doctors. When you ask their opinion their usually say it could be many reasons to cause disease, but 100% everyone is sick, otherwise how to make money on our health and lives? Everyone who died by suicide 100% had mental issues and you can't prove their wrong.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

I came across an article that made my jaw drop, because it contained a sentence which completely contradicts my view on suicide.

First of all, I must say that the quote below comes from KI, the top medical university in Sweden, which is at the forefront of medical research. So, as far as sources go, this one is as reliable as they come. Hence the jaw drop.


Everyone who tries to take their own life must be sick. True! There's almost always some form of mental illness behind suicide.


Oh, the vague, all-encompasing expression "some form of" made me pause in astonishment. Every fiber of my being disagrees with this quote. And yet, it is posted on KI and based on studies carried out at Oxford.

Who am I to even begin to disagree with such giants?


What if the quote is correct, and I am in the wrong? What if I am deluding myself? What if I have no true understanding whatsoever of my self and my desire to end my life, because it is all the result of my mind being "ill"? What if they are right? What then?

Does it even matter? Well, it does... I need to believe that wanting to ctb stems from a reasonable analysis of my life, and not from a faulty short-circuit inside my head. I shudder at the thought that I may be neither lucid nor able to make autunomous decisions... What then? There's no winning, is there?

Does this make any sense to you?

It's the age old problem. If you are 'sick' then how would you know it?
I tell my shrink that I'm depressed because my health is in ruins and my life has collapsed, that depression us a reasonable and natural response to such dire circumstances. It's actually a rational response, there'd be something wrong with my mind if I wasn't depressed.
He says 'that's exactly the sort of thing a depressed person would say.'
Can't argue with that! I am rational but sometimes I question my own state of mind too. Are they right?
I'm sorry, sometimes I don't know myself. However, I think it is healthy to question these things and never be closed off to other points of view. In my opinion it is never wrong to question anything. It's how we learn.

 

[Someonetired]

"Well I've never met/heard of a person who isn't mentally ill who have attempted suicide?"

That's the first thing i thought of when I read this, but then it kinda hit me That basically everyone who isn't happy with their life is Labeled mentally ill..I got a few diagnosis myself and I've always thought of "healthy" ppl as being happy and satisfied with their life, and why would anybody happy ever attempt suicide? Sorry for rambling, Im just trying to understand.. is it possible to jot be depressed or have any kind of mental illnesses and still wanna end it all?

 

[Quarky00]

People commit suicide after getting divorced, losing their loved ones or their fortunes. That's not in the DSM (mostly) . I'm sorry , there's no "Lost-Moneyism Disorder" or "Jumpy Bridgey Syndrome" . And these people are quite "normal" (mostly) and there's no "some illness" there. So now a distress is illness? The entire notion there is void.

Oxford can publish trillion studies (including lies, damn lies, and statistics). The biomechanical view of the human mind and its generalization is not working. It's not an organ that is "sick" and can be "cured". Psychiatry is about YES/NO. You have it or you don't. Few specialists, in their moment of kindness, bothered explaining that assessment process to me. It's self defeating to our cause, and to your question :) It's a self-fulfilling prophecy (a maxim that circles back to itself), and quite narrow even by those standards. Or in simpler terms: IT'S MORE LOOPY THAN US :)

• Some people consider their mental condition an illness -- others don't.
• Some are okay with being suicidal or self-harming as part of them -- other view it as a solution -- yet some suicidal people detest that part of them.
• I'm sorry but there are people who had a PERFECT life with no hardships or triggers or abuse -- yet they are suicidal.
• And yes - some people consider their suicidal tendencies as just "faulty circuit" . They are not influenced by doctors , they just feel that way (eg they "want to live" but "must die") .

He who tries to put it all into one box , is a perfect jackass The ones actually exploring all their causes and options (here) are lucid ; he, he is the jackass ; he is delusional and not connected to reality. And this great example of what's wrong with modern life. Because public and professionals nowadays tends to 'bumper sticker' everything , not just mental health. It doesn't work.

What I see there from KI is a doctor that turned into making bumper-stickers!

And I wouldn't be surprised if Oxford's folks do the same. It gets headlines. And 'success rates'. Universities and science , though I utterly respect those , are just not the way they used to be. It's the best humanity got. But in many fields it's just not good enough. Most importantly, with science we must look at the broader picture in academics , an inter-disciplinary consensus built over decades , rather than a single body of work. Eg many modern SSRI are just 10 years old, that's not science... Sure try medications to help people, but saying "this cures" or "this is an illness" is voodoo talk, and just random testing of guinea pigs. If a certain thing works consistently for 50 years , I'll buy it . That's not the case for psychiatry . I understand this was just thought-provoking and you don't take it by its word (you are objecting it), but had to put that in context :)

Why does the common person experiencing hardship (yet not suicidal) understands us so well ? I don't mean in a survey , or in a comment section . If and when they sit with a suicidal person patiently, most would agree with that person analysis . They do understand. This has been mentioned in other comments in this thread . Those at the top , doctors and others , are delusional and disconnected from human emotions and day to day reality .

As for your personal conundrum : true, you may not know . You may explore more. When an issue arises for me I sit down for a week , meditate , and write 10 pages a day to get my answer (yeah I'm nuts) . That's how you KNOW . You doubt it a million times . I'm sure many people don't need that , explored everything well , and are pretty sure . If you fear you don't have a true understanding whatsoever of your self and the desire to end your life , by all means , have a field day . (I know OP explored , this is not addressed to them;)

And yes , it's healthy to have some doubts. That's a big difference between your KI/Oxford herd and a diverse self-doubting SS community . ("your";)

The plethora of posts on these hallowed airwaves proves many of use , including you , are lucid and rationale . Some are emotional and impulsive , but still lucid and rationale . Most have been through enough to know , to make autonomous decisions . Some do it impulsively , due to some "shit storm" or "meltdown" . And you know what ? If they feel that way for 10 years I can't say they are wrong (despite it being impulsive and all) . But it sure hell ain't just "some illness" !

(Why did I write so much?! .. I shall now go to a far corner of the earth and keep my vows of silence. C ya in 2021.)

 

[Epsilon0]

Yes, @Underscore , my thoughts exactly. If you are critical of someone else's statements, you should also be prepared to critically analyze your own claims. Hence the dilemma.

@GoodPersonEffed you mentiomed Foucault's discourse theory in relation to the term "mental illness". Foucault basically says that language shapes my reality and thus sways enormous power.

I admire your passion for Foucault and I, myself, am a fan of his discourse theory, but, I must point out that discourse theory lacks the critical dimension.

That is why I am inclined to favour Fairclough who took Foucault's theory a bit further. Discourses to Foucault are practices that shape the objects they talk about. His theory is largely descriptive, whereas Fairclough's critical discourse analysis is concerned with activly subverting and questioning the authority which wants to assign meaning and value to practices through languange and signs. The pillar of critical discourse analysis is the distrust of any preestablished truths.

What I take from Fairclough is this idea that I should maintain a critical perspective on all discourses - whether they are my mine, or someone else's.

So, I must concede to the possibility that the question I am posing is like Schrödinger's cat: conventional medicine might be wrong, or I might be wrong. Both standpoints are equally acceptable, and both are true at the same time, since neither can be refuted beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

I've actually thought before that defining people with depression as ill is wrong.
My physical illness is what defines me now, I have no choice, but prior to that my depression defined me. It was who I was. If I tried to overcome it, then it was that fight, and thus still the depression that defined who I was. No way to escape it even if you win.
For me, being told I am depressed and I shouldn't be feeling like that, demeans who I am. It tells me that I am an illness, a disease and that I am wrong. I don't want to be like this but it is my nature and I must accept it in order to fight it.

Yes, @Underscore , my thoughts exactly. If you are critical of someone else's statements, you should also be prepared to critically analyze your own claims. Hence the dilemma.

@GoodPersonEffed you mentiomed Foucault's discourse theory in relation to the term "mental illness". Foucault basically says that language shapes my reality and thus sways enormous power.

I admire your passion for Foucault and I, myself, am a fan of his discourse theory, but, I must point out that discourse theory lacks the critical dimension.

That is why I am inclined to favour Fairclough who took Foucault's theory a bit further. Discourses to Foucault are practices that shape the objects they talk about. His theory is largely descriptive, whereas Fairclough's critical discourse analysis is concerned with activly subverting and questioning the authority which wants to assign meaning and value to practices through languange and signs. The pillar of critical discourse analysis is the distrust of any preestablished truths.

What I take from Fairclough is this idea that I should maintain a critical perspective on all discourses - whether they are my mine, or someone else's.

So, I must concede to the possibility that the question I am posing is like Schrödinger's cat: conventional medicine might be wrong, or I might be wrong. Both standpoints are equally acceptable, and both are true at the same time, since neither can be refuted beyond any reasonable doubt.

Second time that damn cat had cropped up tonight. Why won't he just stay in his box?
Interesting viewpoint that appeals to my sometimes conflicted attitude. Something to think about.

 

[Epsilon0]

I've actually thought before that defining people with depression as ill is wrong.
My physical illness is what defines me now, I have no choice, but prior to that my depression defined me. It was who I was. If I tried to overcome it, then it was that fight, and thus still the depression that defined who I was. No way to escape it even if you win.
For me, being told I am depressed and I shouldn't be feeling like that, demeans who I am. It tells me that I am an illness, a disease and that I am wrong. I don't want to be like this but it is my nature and I must accept it in order to fight it.

Second time that damn cat had cropped up tonight. Why won't he just stay in his box?
Interesting viewpoint that appeals to my sometimes conflicted attitude. Something to think about.

The cat in the box is definitely a she. Only women are complicated enough to be both alive and dead at the same time.

 

[Jean4]

The cat in the box is definitely a she. Only women are complicated enough to be both alive and dead at the same time.

Statement of the year!

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

@Epsilon0

I forgot about Fairclough! Foucault started discourse analysis, but others greatly improved it. Foucault sets off random wandering, others provide tools to experience the journey and increase the potential for arriving at a destination.

I admire both you and @Underscore for engaging with other points of view for self-reflection, and that you use them for potential self-empowerment and expanded awareness, not to self-negate or self-disempower.

My knee-jerk response was that I thought you'd experienced negation and disempowerment as a result of having your needs and self addressed in the domain of someone else's playground. What I value about Madness and Civilization is that it takes away much of the power and mythical validity of psychologically- and psychiatrically-based assertions and their playgrounds. Those playgrounds started out as prisons, and create labels to validate and reify the power structures; I perhaps inaccurately saw you as being snared by labels, prisons, and self-validating power structures and sent you the means I use to escape and stay free of their lures and influences.

But I can see that perhaps they also have served. My minefields are not always minefields to others, not because others are blind, but they are already shielded, or the mines aren't set to respond to their step.

 

[Aeathelina]

I'm no scientist or doctor so I have no factual evidence. But for me I k ow getting called sick and weak because of my poor mental health isn't going to change anything for me. I know that I'm a lot of terrible things and that I want to die.

 

[Sensei]

Well, this is both simpler and more difficult than it seems. According to most estimates, at least 90 % of all people who commit suicide suffer from a mental health condition. It can be major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD, common depression, and, classified as a mental health condition nowadays, substance abuse. This figure also includes temporary depressions and psychoses. However, this doesn't mean that all these people commit suicide because they are mentally ill, as suicide is not a symptom of any mental illness. They commit suicide because their mental illnesses make life too difficult to live. As already discussed, it's a matter of perspective if someone is mentally ill or not. For instance, if a person loses their family, their livelihood, their home, and their health and then commits suicide, is that person really clinically depressed or simply reacting logically to unbearable hardships? In any case, to say that "there's almost always some form of mental illness behind suicide" is very questionable in many different ways.

 

[Jean4]

Well, this is both simpler and more difficult than it seems. According to most estimates, at least 90 % of all people who commit suicide suffer from a mental health condition. It can be major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD, common depression, and, classified as a mental health condition nowadays, substance abuse. This figure also includes temporary depressions and psychoses. However, this doesn't mean that all these people commit suicide because they are mentally ill, as suicide is not a symptom of any mental illness. They commit suicide because their mental illnesses make life too difficult to live. As already discussed, it's a matter of perspective if someone is mentally ill or not. For instance, if a person loses their family, their livelihood, their home, and their health and then commits suicide, is that person really clinically depressed or simply reacting logically to unbearable hardships? In any case, to say that "there's almost always some form of mental illness behind suicide" is very questionable in many different ways.

My @Sensei is having a good day. That makes me happy. I will return to my cave monitoring your. Carry on. ;)

 

[avoid_slow_death]

I get how this can seem provocative without having engaged with the book. I'll do my best to answer your questions/concerns and try not to derail the thread.

Please note I was speaking in my post to @Epsilon0 with reference to another thread in which we've discussed common interests with regard, in part, to French philosophers who have influenced us both. 2) In the 1970s, several influential French philosophers petitioned the French government to legalize pedophilia. It was quite the scandal, and rightfully so. In France, philosophers were/are revered. A movie star was the first major US celebrity to die of AIDS; in Britain, it was a rock star; in France, it was Foucault. Some very heavy philosophy hitters signed the petition in France, it was and still is a scandal. I struggle to not throw out the baby with the bathwater, to engage with their philosophies about power, but not children. They claimed to have sought to empower children. You and I agree that point of view is, to put it lightly, flawed. From an academic standpoint, if I claim Foucault's arguments empower @Epsilon0 , I have to acknowledge his academic and social critics and weaknesses.

1), 3), 4), 5):

Madness and Civilization - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Wikipedia article explains this much better than I, if you truly want the answers to your questions, it is a good read.

I'll briefly address 5: In my understanding of discourse theory, you were speaking from a framework of mental illness, which was created by psychiatry and psychology. It is political. Speaking in their language validates and reinforces their power over people they deemed as criminals and then patients -- people who had previously had a place in society, literature, and art. Such a framework says people who are suicidal are mentally ill. It slapped a label on @Epsilon0 that made her question herself -- her identity, and her right to define herself. I called bullshit and Foucault has my back. I pointed out potential holes in the shield that enemies will try to strike at.

Foucault studied how power influences language, such as "madness," "mental illness" (and elsewhere, "gay"). He explored surveillance long before there were cameras and biotechnology, and warned about government control. In the book I referenced, he pointed out how labels about madness and mental illness created people who previously did not exist in society -- the mentally ill -- and separated them from society, made them a spectacle to be feared and hated, and were used as pawns to control society by example.

No leader is perfect. MLK screwed around on his wife. Gandhi slept fully clothed with his naked virgin niece to test his dedication to celibacy. I hate these things, but I love the results of their life works. I feel the same about Foucault and his contemporary who I mentioned, Roland Barthes, a critic of the cultural myths we take as fact but actually enslave us to unseen powers, such as the myth of mental illness.

I hope this addressed your questions. I recognize you were upset and I acknowledge that you were, and that you have reason, from within your lived experience, to be upset. I did not intend to poke at your hurts, or anyone's. The theory I introduced here is potentially on your side, but certainly not against you; nor am I.

This. I feel this is not a TRUE scientific study. It sounds more like it was started with the point of reinforcing a bias designed to trick people into thinking they are mentally ill. The complexities of environmental factors and emotional reactions, especially on a long term basis are, in my estimation, far too personal to each individual to reduce to such a blanket statement. That said, yes, there are individuals who are influenced to do as such due to a mental illness, but to make such a bold statement as this "study" has precluded is both unscientific and damaging to individuals going through the issues they are facing to cause them to reach such a state of mind.