Page 5 of 5 [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5


How should mental illness be defined?
Significant deviation in behavior from social norms or social ideals 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Significantly anti-social behavior 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Significantly perverse-seeming behavior 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Any neurological condition that is linked to deviation from social norms or social ideals 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Any neurological condition that is linked to anti-social behavior 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Any neurological condition that is linked to perverse-seeming behavior 8%  8%  [ 2 ]
Equal to, or a result of extreme spiritual sickness or demonic possession 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Mental illness does not or cannot properly exist 13%  13%  [ 3 ]
Illness does not or cannot properly exist 13%  13%  [ 3 ]
Other 50%  50%  [ 12 ]
Total votes : 24

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

05 Feb 2009, 9:21 pm

claire333 wrote:
That makes sense, although I have doubts if such a person exists unless they are somehow incapacitated, which would not necessarily be mental illness.

Well, I do not think that such a person exists, but to say that the range of behavior that a sane person would have to have, would have to include destructive behavior leads to problems with measuring mental illness by destructive behavior as we have defined wellness to include the actualizable possibility of the sick behavior we would presumably want to get rid of, which means that it could be sicker to be well, which to me seems a problematic paradox.

Not only that, but I do not see how the definition of harm to self or others can avoid ideology, because either we accept that some acceptable behavior is ill(a critique of society), or we have to say that certain acceptable behavior gets the special treatment of not being ill(an uncritical endorsement of society), and any more nuanced view will still likely lead more towards or against other ideologies. This isn't to say that a particularly ideology might not be correct, but in a world that is uncertain towards ideologies, it is hard to call someone right or wrong based upon a matter where ideology can show up.



claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

05 Feb 2009, 10:01 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, I do not think that such a person exists, but to say that the range of behavior that a sane person would have to have, would have to include destructive behavior leads to problems with measuring mental illness by destructive behavior as we have defined wellness to include the actualizable possibility of the sick behavior we would presumably want to get rid of, which means that it could be sicker to be well, which to me seems a problematic paradox.
You would be correct, but now we have come full circle, because your arguement brings me back to my arguement of weighing the positive vs. negative results destructive behavior provides for a person as an organism vs. individual.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Not only that, but I do not see how the definition of harm to self or others can avoid ideology, because either we accept that some acceptable behavior is ill(a critique of society), or we have to say that certain acceptable behavior gets the special treatment of not being ill(an uncritical endorsement of society), and any more nuanced view will still likely lead more towards or against other ideologies. This isn't to say that a particularly ideology might not be correct, but in a world that is uncertain towards ideologies, it is hard to call someone right or wrong based upon a matter where ideology can show up.
Oh, there you go...making me think again. However, for some reason, I wonder if you think any definition can avoid ideology, especially if there is even the hint of possible subjectivity; which makes me wonder what I think about that too. Thanks for the chat; this was a fun topic.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

05 Feb 2009, 11:57 pm

Yeah, and I would still argue that the organism based view is flawed, as I would argue that individuals dominate because it is hard for me to draw a line when the individual should dominate and when it shouldn't, as there are exceptions, and I cannot see how to not universalize these exceptions to make them dependent upon the self rather than another person's judgment.

There is the inherent problem, our world is squishy, but a thought that can sustain us probably cannot be quite as squishy.