Philosophy, Mental Health, and The Two Routes

Kair, L. (2022). Philosophy, Mental Health and The Two Routes.

This paper is a response to May-Lynne El-Debs paper “Introduction to Philosophy”. The link is in the next post.

I invite you to engage with the discussion about how a subject of mental health comes to know itself in reality.

https://www.academia.edu/91714405/Philosophy_Mental_Health_and_The_Two_Routes

Or, engage right here in the comments.

Be well.

Can brain anatomy and function account for psychiatric conditions? – A New Vision for Mental Health

Can brain anatomy and function account for psychiatric conditions? – A New Vision for Mental Health
— Read on www.newvisionformentalhealth.com/2022/09/26/can-brain-anatomy-and-function-account-for-psychiatric-conditions/

—-Here she is going a little deeper…

So good !

👽

x

Rp The role of mind in neuroscience

After failing to find anatomical or functional correlates of a variety of psychiatric conditions, Dr. Sarah Durston (neuroscientist and Professor of …

The role of mind in neuroscience

—— If you are not as concerned about the philosophical side and want to hear just about the biological side of mental disorder and diagnosis from the research stand point, start at 18:30.

Very interesting….and validating as a philosopher and clinician.

Is the Excessive Want for Money is a Mental Disorder ?

This morning I saw a tweet from none other than the shameful Texas Senator Ted Cruz in which, without facts or justification, he blamed President …

Put The Blame Where It Belongs!

—- This post reminds me of an idea I had about 10 years ago.

It’s excessively hypothetical but I think very sensible and it’s route.

Here we go…

…it goes like this:

Greed Disorder

My idea is that excessive want is actually a mental disorder. I was thinking this way before I was even beginning to ponder about being a mental health counselor, so don’t think that I am Mr. Therapist over here thinking that selfishness needs to be corrected because I’m a counselor. 😄

My background and coming with this idea is that I married into a pretty wealthy family (now divorced). I am from basically middle-class upper middle-class upbringing in the suburbs. And when I met my ex-wife, she had basically rejected the attitudes of her upper class upbringing and went out on her own. So as I got to know her about how wealthy her family is, I just kind of put it in my pocket like an interesting tidbit of information. But as well, because I had never met anyone who was very wealthy, I had my ideas and biases about how these people were, and my ex-wife was not really like that.

She would tell me about her brother, family friends and friends friends etc. of pretty famous people. And, me, not being that impressed about famous people, again, just put it in my pocket as a piece of tidbit information.

When I finally met her brother, he was nothing like I thought wealthy people were, and it kind of destroyed my stereotype. He was just a regular guy, very nice guy, very thoughtful, considerate, caring, concerned for others. But he also had a very giant, nice house with all that modern technology stuff, very expensive cars and I knew how much money he made a year, and I knew from just hearing about his lifethat he could just basically do anything he wanted at any time he wanted. He could buy pretty much anything he wanted. And this could happen simply because he decided.

I reflected on his life compared to me and my wife’s life. Our life with perhaps again middle upper class-ish but I don’t think people would think that. Together we may be made 150 K. So, not rich, but not poor.

I reflected on our life. We were pretty happy. We had what we needed. We could basically do what we want with some planning. But we pretty much were content in our life.

And I thought about her brother. Just for the sake of this post here, I’m going to throw out a number that’s probably near what he made in a year. Which is, $6 million a year, not including family assets. Now, he wasn’t lazy at all. He worked 70-80 hour weeks. He was very devoted to his career and business, which involved serving people, caring for them. He had a chef that would make him lunches. He had a yoga teacher that would come to his house, and a some sort of martial arts trainer as well. And then every once in a while, maybe every couple months or some thing he would just disappear. He would go to Cabo for a week and party insanely with his friends from Cornel that he still had. Or maybe the Mediterranean.

The reflection that I had upon this situation, the discrepancy or disparity between how he lived and how I lived really struck me. Personally, I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure that I would never work 70 or 80 hour work weeks end on end. And I’m not really sure that I would really want to do all the things that he likes to do.

But what crossed my mind was, how much money does a person need to make to do whatever the hell they want to do whenever they want to do it? How much money does it take for a person to be able to buy whatever they want whenever they want it?

Somehow I feel that some motivated graduate student or PhD person could do a study of economics and determine roughly a pretty good estimate of how much person would need to make to fit into those categories.

The Diagnosis

My idea, my conclusion, my proposal, really just comes off of my feeling about the matter and knowing somethings about my brother-in-law. So, not science at all.

From my mind, here is this guy that makes five to $6 million a year and he pretty much does and can buy anything he wants to, at the drop of a hat.

And my mind goes to what about the people that make $100 million a year? What about billionaires. What are they doing? I mean this in the sense that what else could they possibly be buying or doing that makes them more happy then say myself or my brother-in-law? Are they more happy, more content because they have that excessive amount of assets?

So, hypothetically let us bring the question before us and think about it constructively and practically.

If my brother-in-law only makes maybe 6 million a year and do whatever he wants, let’s just figure some people need more shit in their lives than he does. So let’s just put some arbitrary number out there as the amount of money that a person could make and be able to have whatever sort of accessories in their life that they could possibly want.

Let’s just say for argument sake $500 million.

So, let’s say that if a person feels in order to be happy and content in their life that they need to make over $500 million a year, as evidenced by that they indeed do make over 5 million a year, then they are mentally compromised, that they have some sort of mental disorder.

Because, that’s the standard we use for every other diagnosis of mental disorder. The evidence has usually nothing to do with what is actually going on in their head, but has everything to do with the assessors version of the persons behavior.

Now, we gotta think about the world. We gotta think about this situation that the post that I linked to above is talking about. We got to think of a social situation.

It seems to me one of the most obvious things is that some people just have way, way, way, too much money, way too much money than they could possibly ever spend even if they had 10 children who are in their 20s.

So I was thinking…

Mental disorders are a social convention. The very idea of mental illness and mental disorders is based around Ideals, ethics, norms, and if a person behaves outside of these conventions then they are deemed to have a mental illness or mental disorder. Indeed, one could go so far —I think Erich Fromm was the first person to talk about this, and Michel Foucault for sure — That these norms and forced upon people as a way to know themselves in the world creates subjects that soon police themselves. And it’s not too far a step to say that that is what mental disorders are, for the most part. They are the result of people policing themselves against these ideological standards, for how they are supposed to be, how they are supposed to think and what they are supposed to do.

If people don’t police themselves and their behavior is too excessive, then we stick them in a mental hospital and we say they have a mental illness.

(We don’t much anymore. Anymore we just let them wander around the streets in misery basically, or throw them in jail.)

Anyways… I have diverged from my proposal.

The Proposal

So, how about we just start thinking about these people with an excessive amount of money, in so much as they might feel that they need this excessive amount of money in order to be content and happy in their life, as having a mental illness. 

Something is wrong with these people. Let’s just say it. Not in the sense that they are bad or evil, but in the sense that they have a mental disorder, and we need to figure out what to do with them, because it’s screwing things up for the rest of us.

What do you think?

Rp and comment on Potentiality

Aristotle associates potentiality with matter. Here I am not endorsing Aristotle’s four causes, nor his hylomorphism, but simply thinking about the …

Potentiality

——- So it is: the actuality of potentiality.

I might even go so far — or father — to say that the issue with subjectivity is that it always the potential of potential, such that it’s actuality is never gained.

Hence: orientation is the actual basic issue for mental health.

For health must be actualized as the potential itself. To always hold or move into the potentiality of what is already potential is nothing less than an existential crisis waiting to either be denied (bad faith) or unfolded (political reality).

What matters is what is actually occurring. The lived experience of potentiality of what is occurring is anxiety, whether for good or bad. That is: the ethical.

Potentiality

Aristotle associates potentiality with matter. Here I am not endorsing Aristotle’s four causes, nor his hylomorphism, but simply thinking about the …

Potentiality

——- So it is: the actuality of potentiality.

I might even go so far — or father — to say that the issue with subjectivity is that it always the potential of potential, such that it’s actuality is never gained.

Hence: orientation is the actual basic issue for mental health.

For health must be actualized as the potential itself. To always hold or move into the potentiality of what is already potential is nothing less than an existential crisis waiting to either be denied (bad faith) or unfolded (political reality).

What matters is what is actually occurring. The lived experience of potentiality of what is occurring is anxiety, whether for good or bad.

Fundamentalist Republicans motivate justice department for Trump raid.

In an underhanded, desperate and ironic move by Republican strategists, the Justice Department was swayed into a fake raid of Trumps Mara-Lago to push Democrats into unfounded defense.

Going along with this fiction of Democratic conspiracy, GOP lawmakers and conservative influencers were quick to call for dismantling the FBI, widespread arrests and violence.
— Read on www.huffpost.com/entry/civil-war-fbi-raid-mar-a-lago-trump_n_62f2ac63e4b0f9d8c0213dbf

—–

It’s pretty amazing how people will be so quick to call to take up guns and potentially die and kill other people, even though their life is pretty fucking good.

Advocate destruction of what they rely upon for their very ability to proclaim their values.

It is ignorance, it has to be that.

I would say their life is probably of the best lives in the world, even on their worst days.

And they just don’t see it.

Their mental health is very poor. Actually insane.

It’s Truly mystifying…and scary.

👽
x

Science is not in opposition to ignorance

Only by a certain orientation upon knowledge does oppositional categories have significant affect.

I was reading a paper, part of the paper anyways, where the author talks about John Locke saying his work not involved with science.

Just got me thinking. Georg Hegel, and many more philosophers for sure we’re trying to find some sort of “science“ of …what? Now that were in the moment that were in, I’m not sure we really are identifying what science actually is.

Indeed, even scientists would give us a definition that if we were to look into what it really means, or what it’s really identifying, we would find that it is like saying that that object over there is a chair. Any mediocre Philosopher knows that as soon as we attempt to investigate an object from the standpoint of the phenomenology of the subject, we find that there’s nothing really there that the word identifies. I’m short, that language or words of language are arbitrary.

Science as Truth

I am the first person to suggest that words are not arbitrary. Even while I hang on to the logic of the philosophy which understands words and sounds and symbols is not necessarily being linked to the object that they suppose.

I feel this is a more significant venture for philosophy: that words identify things that truly arise in the universe. That the knowledge of things in such a way is indeed a science, or indeed can be eventually found out and known truthfully in a system of science.

Now, of course, the only logical means to understand that last phrase that I gave is to understand that I am not in a project that has to do with the present moment, so far as modern science. But rather, indeed science is some thing that human beings are involved with teleologically, that is to say, universally. So it is that I say that my work has to do with disrupting correlated terms, which is to say, terms that arise in a polemic which seem like they’re true, but Are really only given into a particular kind of knowledge. I called this particular kind of knowledge modern.

This is interesting because if I’m going to propose that my work has something to do with science then I must realize that there is a current working epistemological paradigm that functions, indeed as it promotes a faith in, it’s mode of corrections, it’s patterned system of lacunae, and that if I am going to propose that my work is scientific, then I must indeed deal with the present misunderstanding that is common empirical science as a thing that arises truly in the universe as well.

In this way, then, we can begin to understand a progress of the human species, of the human being, that betrays the common ideological heritage. We can begin to see that a science arises through a different kind of understanding of what has been happening in the growth of the human creature through time, and indeed that’s come upon a different understanding of what time actually is. After all this: we can find a scientific truth of the universe that human beings can know and apply.

Post Truth?

This is also to say that we must contend with idiocy. We must contend with the idiocy of the conservative liberal “science” -oriented modern epistemological technology, and those correlations that constitute its basis, those who have a different opinion, that knowledge which arises as “conspiracy“, The conveyors of post truth, and otherwise ignorant people, warmongers of 19th century disposition, etc..

A little while ago the philosopher Alain Badiou suggested that the radical political move would be to not vote. Basically, to drop out of involving oneself with politics. That this indeed would be the radical political move. And of course, all those for Social Justice really had to take what he was saying and apply it ironically, metaphorically, as if he really wasn’t saying what he was saying.

For, for those oriented in the social justice of empirical modern reality, one must make choices into political action..

Disjointed and disconnected as it is from any true universe — when we begin to comprehend that I am not involved in the constituting of the other, then we can truly begin to understand what subjectivity is and how it indeed arises as a true thing in the universe.

We find that we just must do what we do, and in that doing we arise as a truly radical political entity. The choice into political agency is based in a decision that cannot be made.

The Moment of Decisive Significance

I’m not making a political statement here, really. .

Science as the Object of the Subject.

Maybe that’s what I’m saying. Science is always epistemological. Epistemology grants the significant understanding of the true universe.

🧐

The Philosophical Hack

We are so motivated and conditioned by the given modern phenomenology that we become fearful and skeptical when the word “truth” arises. So far as mental health, this kind of fear is “the final frontier“, and it is usually a fear that resides so deeply and so substantially that people just consider it normal. Indeed, it is so foundational, it constitutes the basis of modern identity, such that most people would be content in the contradictions that uphold their identity, to have some personal and private spirituality and religious belief, that most mental health issues are never encountered. That is the way of the modern capitalistic world; we cannot impose mental health upon all of humanity and its social systems, if simply because we have no way of affectively addressing it. Hence, I see ethics as having to do more with logistics, and less of what meaning and decisions we see ourselves needing to make.

🦥

The truth is in there.

👽

Recycling and sound philosophy

Something just dawned on me as I was washing the plastic cutlery that I got with my Noodles & Co food.

Now, hold on Judge-mental philosophers. Yes I do live in a pretty liberal place, and, it does really bother me all of the trash that I generate. Which, actually, it’s not very much considering what I notice neighborhoods generate. I generate maybe one kitchen trash bag of trash in my place of living about every two weeks without trying.

I do try to set my boxes and blatant recyclable items aside and put them in the recycling can outside. And, I know, we generate so much stuff that be recycled that never gets recycled simply because we do not have the global power presently to recycle all the stuff that could be recycled.

As well, I understand that even in my very lazy, admittedly not very worried version of recycling and Eco conservation, I probably do more than 3/4 of the globe does. And I would figure that I probably do more in my lame ass version of recycling and conserving then probably 2/3 of the United States.

One may ponder the philosophical questions of “what’s the use“. And then further ponder the usual ethical philosophical answers as like things that have to do with chaos theory, butterfly effect, like, I just do my part, all those kinds of compensations…

Of course, underneath all this implicit guilt tripping there is the Nazi version that basically we hear all the time:

“Human beings are destroying the planet! …

Everyone must get it together now or we’re all gonna die!!”

Ok. When you think about it, this voice goes through every single person‘s head who’s reading this post, I guarantee it. And probably 99% of the people who don’t read it as well.

I’m not talking about what peoples opinions on it are. I’m not talking about the ethics of it either. In fact, I would say that the ethics-as-blame behind it really just serve to perpetuate the problem, due to all the underlying mental health, societal, familial issues that motivate the individual to its modern, capitalistic dimensions.

No, I don’t really care here about what is ethical so far as recycling. I’m not even really concerned that we’re going to destroy ourselves, because, honestly, the vastness of the universe, and the vastness of the involvement of human beings in the universe, precludes that we will destroy ourselves.

Yes and – There’s no argument to be made due to the fact that any argument we would make, either pro or con, ignores the fact of the actuality of the situation, argues itself over the actuality of what it is. Namely, here we are having a conversation about a situation that we had no control over, except to say, that the whole time we felt that we had some control over it until we found out about it. And then our ethical animal minds jump up and have all sorts of weird reactions to it, including categorizing them into what is rational, sensible, detestable, fatalistic, you name it…

Different

It dawned on me though: we’re going about it the wrong way. Rather, the people that promote, down our throats, that we are destroying the planet and so we need to figure out how to conserve the planet better, they are going about implementing a solution the wrong way.

Basically , they’re guilt tripping us. ‘Science’ is being used incorrectly. Science yields information, and not an ethical mandate.

I don’t know about any of you guys, but, when someone guilt trips me, I usually end up doing the exact opposite as they want. At least right in that moment. Maybe I might get around to it at some point, but it’s definitely not in the timeframe that they’re thinking about when they’re guilt tripping me about whatever it is.

I’m not saying I’m right or I’m wrong or justified or not in my behavior and attitude, I’m just pointing out a simple fact of what occurs. But also, that I can guarantee that I’m not alone in this attitude and reaction and ultimate behavior.

So…

I think the better approach is to understand that recycling and conservation isn’t about “we better do this or we’re going to die”. Nor is it even about the world that we’re giving to our children, because those are just guilt trips that don’t work.

The way we should think about it is that what we’re doing is we’re giving the present and future more time to figure out how to handle the inevitable problem.

What is the inevitable problem? You might ask.

The inevitable problem is that there is always a problem.

Just ask K:

What the people are not knowing about, in my context, is that there is always some huge giant problem that humanity needs to solve right now.

This is what we call modern subjectivity.

The state that is modern is the state of problem. It is the avoidance of the truth of what is actually occurring for the sake of the problem that manifests because of an avoidance of what is actually occurring.

Ok. I’ll let you ponder that a little bit.

But I’ll just repeat.

We should think about recycling as someone who’s throwing interference in a chase…

Start at 2:00

If we look at our behavior as that we are just attempting to give our scientists more time to figure out how to handle the problem that is upon us, the problem that is eminent, the problem that will not go away — that is a different way of approaching than from the guilt trip.

Then people might actually change their attitude because then they’re actually thinking about their kids, rather than being told how to run their lives or how to parent.

Just a thought for all you sound philosophers who like to think that you’re ethical.

👽

The Chrysalis

"For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern" -- William Blake

Note To My White Self

The reflections of a white man confronting his personal privilege and racism.

The Orthosphere

Wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists - Joseph de Maistre

Object Relations

"A Word of Substance"

Random thoughts

Random musings about everything.

Wise & Shine

A community for writers & readers

A New Vision for Mental Health

New and interesting things are happening in mental healthcare – find out about them here and help shape a new vision for mental health

Mental Health 101

Author/Writer @ Thought Catalog, LiberoMagazine, Invisible illness&TotallyADD peer supporter trainee I blog to bring awareness to mental health issues

Secrets of Mental Health

The Choice is Yours!

RTS -Mental health

Facing The Challenges of Mental Health

Spo-Reflections

To live is to battle with trolls in the vaults of heart and brain. To write; this is to sit in judgment over one's Self. Henrik Ibsen

Mind Beauty Simplicity

living with less gave me more to live for

Olivia Lucie Blake

Musings of a Millennial. Life, The World and Everything In Between.

Damon Ashworth Psychology

Clinical Psychologist

Mental Health @ Home

A safe place to talk openly about mental health & illness

The Absurd

piles of dog-eared books, fountain pens, poetry, romance and despair, existential crisis, anarchy, rebellion

THE HIDDEN SOUL

Want some motivation,this is the place

Bio-Blogger

Bio-Blogger is an excellent source for collaborations and to explore your businesses & talents.

Wibble

Just another glitch in the matrix

Filosofa's Word

Cogito Ergo Sum

Climate of Sophistry

Climate science is sophistry...i.e., BS.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

a joyful life

happiness joy love kindness peace

The Twisting Tail

the world turns on a word

Mytika Speak

Where Logic and Feeling Unite

Notes from Camelid Country

A travel blog from Bolivia to Belgium via Berlin

Heroes Not Zombies

becoming not being.......

Emotional Shadows

where all emotions are cared for!

Soulsoothinsounds's Blog

For those awakening divine humans

Peacock Poetry

by Sam Allen

Union Homestead

An urban homesteading family move to the country; still a story of trial and error...a lot of error!

The adopted ones blog

Two adoptees - one vocal the other not so much...

Conversations on finding and loving who I am

Let's have an open conversation about life.

ThoughtsnLifeBlog

Change your thoughts and transform your life

Tips from Sharvi

Tips to make your daily life easier!

mulyale mutisya

what the eyes have seen, ears have heard, being has experienced and what the Spirit has felt.

TheCommonAtheist

One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap

beetleypete

The musings of a Londoner, now living in Norfolk

radhikasreflection

Everyday musings ....Life as I see it.......my space, my reflections and thoughts !!

THE SPECTACLED BEAN

Tales, Thoughts + Tribulations of a Free Spirit in Suburbia