Introduction to the psychopathic life

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think this is that grey. At the very least, the most charitable interpretation is the metaphorical interpretation, and generally speaking a person should be interpreted more charitably than less.

She never said "movement", and neither did I.(the distinction is important) I don't think that what our OP is doing is even that terrible either, especially if the OP had a particular aesthetic frame in her mind when promoting the idea. One might argue that Max Stirner's egoist could be too broad to properly be an egoist as his egoism can effectually include concern about others, however, his notion of the egoist against the mainstream still seems a valid rhetorical device.

In any case, if you are going to criticize a person's method as insufficient, then how would you do it?

This seems to me a good point. Have philosophers (I'm thinking of Deleuze) glorified psychosis in a dangerous way? When we go to the very bottom of the sea, sometimes the diving bell does not come back up.

My main question is still, does DSM & co. use Psychopathy in a way that brands free-thinkers (with an emphasis on free, contra: 'sheeple') as mentally ill? A careful reading of the diagnostic criteria seems to me to suggest this.

And that's OK... why?


No, I think freely and logicaly, no one trys to brand me as metally ill. But if you with "free" means to always try and do something opposite mainstream just because (childish), or to neglect the risks (dangerous), then mayby.
Reading and interpret descritptions are very easy really, you can make it sound like anything you want. The real trick is to understand what they mean, and not what you want them to mean.

Somewhat. In the instances of things that essentially get discarded and disregarded as conspiracy theory, they could most likely find a category...though, not the "psychopathic" diagnosis (which is an archaic term by this point).

Well, it is hard to say because the ultimate usage of a label has nothing necessarily to do with the label itself, but rather how people choose to interpret it. I would imagine that the DSM is going to mostly be used upon people who are causing some form of trouble, and given that all societies are going to suppress troublemakers, the DSM is not really special if it is used to that point.

Not only that, but is your reading careful and mindful of the context in which society is likely to use these labels? Have you given account for the people who probably could use a label to suppress them vs those who should not have this label to suppress them? Do you think that other people might disagree with your reading of this label? I am just curious, as I am not sure if your position is really a powerful position.

Who we are is a lottery. Before we are born we can turn out more than a billion different ways. We will become who we are based on who our parents are, what genes we have inherited from whichever root of the family and the level of wealth and type of society we're born into.

I would argue people who don't conform to society should be tolerated as much as possible and an attempt to understand everyone is going to make people happier. Putting that into practice presents difficult conundrums. Therefore I propose we simply do what we can for now.

My suggestions would be to make all psychiatric care based near people's homes in small facilities that are regularly under independent scrutiny. People should be allowed to launch a legal appeal to repeal a psychiatric diagnosis in a court of law. I also think people ought to be found insane by a trial of members of the public and be told how long to be detained by a judge who could be advised but not ordered by a psychiatrist. Then everyone will have to take responsibility for the decisions instead of giving psychiatrists all the responsibility. Psychiatric detention facilities should always have en-suite bathrooms and spotless toilets and showers too and a kind of food that is to the detainee's taste (within reason). My argument in sum is at the very least we should always give people the benefit of the doubt even when we suspect they are insane and thus treat them as respectfully as possible.

The death penalty has widely been banned because it's an example of the state becoming a criminal itself to deal with an apparent criminal. On the same principle the state becoming too eager to class people as insane and manhandling people into degrading captivity too easily is perhaps the state proving itself to be insane. Making the psychiatric system slightly more democratic might seem frightening but unless people talk about and openly discuss insanity then people will never truly learn enough about it in my opinion.

Although these reforms wouldn't actually stop free thinkers from sometimes being labelled insane they would at least guarantee them a better standard of living were they unfortunate to wrongly be dubbed so.

Quite so. We are the product of three things. One our genetic makeup, which is the result of a crap shoot. Second the coincidental things that happen to us beyond our control and third, our choices.

ruveyn

Yes, I think it does...by the mere fact psychopathy is no longer an exclusive diagnosis. ASPD is a wide sweeping brush which grants no specifics to the narcissistic and sadistic nature of the psychopath. So while all psychopaths meet the criteria for ASPD, it is easily deduced that not all ASPDs are psychopathic.