What are the philosophical perspectives on depression?
Since I was diagnosed with depression, I wanted to get a philosophical approach to why people suffer from this mental state; and on the other hand, if there is another way to get through it apart from medical drugs.
Let's start with the main philosophical view that is usually related to depression: existentialism.
According to the Cambridge dictionary, existentialism is a family of philosophical views and inquiry that explore the human individual's struggle to lead an authentic life despite the apparent absurdity or incomprehensibility of existence.
I feel sad and bad, but I can't understand why. The human mind is more complex than I ever thought. I want to know why I feel that way. If people ask me why I feel one way or the other, I can't really answer them, and this makes me struggle with my knowledge. Seriously, it makes me wonder why I feel sad if I can't really know what makes me sad at all. This incomprehensibility of my existence is often unbearable, but I don't know if this is the cause of depression.
Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard influenced me. Furthermore, some themes of Dostoevsky's novellas are suicide, poverty, human manipulation, and morality. What makes me really depressed about Dostoevsky's characters are the children. They often die from sickness. I believe he [Dostoevsky] wanted to make us understand the cruelty and pity of the human condition: children die, people cheat, poverty exists, and some don't make choices under moral beliefs. I honestly admit that these make me feel sentimental about the characters and their circumstances. I suffer when I read some of the chapters because I feel reflected in some of them. I think their novellas could help me to understand human behaviour better, but he was Orthodox (I am not religious), and it also appears cultural points that I think only happen in Russia.
I tried Kierkegaard one more time "Fear and Trembling". But his writings are complex to me.
So, I ask you: What are the philosophical perspectives on depression?
Let's start with the main philosophical view that is usually related to depression: existentialism.
According to the Cambridge dictionary, existentialism is a family of philosophical views and inquiry that explore the human individual's struggle to lead an authentic life despite the apparent absurdity or incomprehensibility of existence.
I feel sad and bad, but I can't understand why. The human mind is more complex than I ever thought. I want to know why I feel that way. If people ask me why I feel one way or the other, I can't really answer them, and this makes me struggle with my knowledge. Seriously, it makes me wonder why I feel sad if I can't really know what makes me sad at all. This incomprehensibility of my existence is often unbearable, but I don't know if this is the cause of depression.
Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard influenced me. Furthermore, some themes of Dostoevsky's novellas are suicide, poverty, human manipulation, and morality. What makes me really depressed about Dostoevsky's characters are the children. They often die from sickness. I believe he [Dostoevsky] wanted to make us understand the cruelty and pity of the human condition: children die, people cheat, poverty exists, and some don't make choices under moral beliefs. I honestly admit that these make me feel sentimental about the characters and their circumstances. I suffer when I read some of the chapters because I feel reflected in some of them. I think their novellas could help me to understand human behaviour better, but he was Orthodox (I am not religious), and it also appears cultural points that I think only happen in Russia.
I tried Kierkegaard one more time "Fear and Trembling". But his writings are complex to me.
So, I ask you: What are the philosophical perspectives on depression?
Comments (86)
It is a wide topic, but one of importance. The idea of existential angst is central. I have read Kierkegaard's 'Fear and Trembling', and found it worth reading, but it is probably rather obscure for most present day experiences. In thinking about depression, they frequently involve feeling 'bad' and 'sad', but have become medicalised, so it is worth thinking of the medical model of depression.
There is definitely a physiological aspect to it, especially in relation to neurotransmitters, which is why antidepressant drugs are given. However, a biopsychosocial is useful in considering the way in which experiences in life and social circumstances affect mood.
The understanding of depression also occurred in the context of psychiatry and the development of psychology. Many view psychological therapy as being important, often in conjunction with antidepressants.
Psychoanalytic theory has been important in thinking of depression. This is a vast subject area and one aspect of which Freud may have made a significant contribution is in the inability to moarn. This would include deaths of others, but also, the traumas and 'deaths' of painful experiences. One other area which it may be worth you reading about is Melanie Klein's idea of the depressive position, which involves a sense of guilt. This occurs in the early life experience of perceiving the mother and oneself, but is relevant for all life experiences. The topic of psychoanalytic theory, and its criticism, is so vast.
There is also the cognitive behaviourist approach, which emphasises that it is not experiences in themselves which lead to depression. It is our beliefs about experience which trigger feelings. So, cognitive behaviour therapy involves looking at and questioning beliefs about experiences. In some ways, CBT is a philosophy approach to understanding experience and it has parallels with Stoic philosophy.
The whole philosophy of emotions is also relevant. Also, the philosophy of mental states and moods may draw upon multidisciplinary thinking, including both the sciences and the arts. Some critics of the medical model see it as being a limited view to simply prescribe medication to lift one's mood. However, this is also open to criticism as in 'clinical depression' the severity can result in an inability to function, to eat, wash and the presence of suicidal thoughts.
There is a whole spectrum of experience in thinking about what is depression? The word may be used by individuals to describe varying experiences, including the presence of a 'blue' or 'black' mood. It includes unique experiences although it involves a universal sense of misery and potential for a state of despair. There is also the question of what makes life worth living and what is happiness?
It is true that Sigmund Freud is an important author to consider in terms of understanding the mind. But I want to go beyond biological matters. My seek is more focused on human behaviour and personal circumstances which lead us to an incomprehensible suffering.
That's why I believe Dostoevsky was very good expressing the sentimental nature of humans.
I come from the opposite end of the spectrum and I believe that it is childhood and what happens in childhood that moulds the adult. Not that these things are set in stone.
I was brought up on a council estate in Northern England and everything was ordered. My family was two parents. One worked, the other looked after the home and us lot.
Crucially for me, my parents did not put any expectations upon us and we got three meals a day (simple meals but filling)
My world view was one of fun and order and I have taken that throughout my life. I have live an ordinary life but have repeated the pattern. My only child was brought up similarly (with more emphasis on education) but she has repeated the pattern. My wife and child work in Mental health jobs and see the damage done by childhood. It isn't just horrendous stories but just parents being not very good.
Patterns of thought are repeated through life and while I have read plenty of Dostoyevsky etc it all seems over the top and childish. I understand people live in terrible circumstances but the perspectives on life of many of my fellow humans seems bizarre to m but I have a fascination with neuro science (on a very basic level) and I understand my experience is my own and in different circumstance I would have been a different personality. I'm also a fan of the Stoics but cherry pick the bits that are relevant to me.
What is it about yourself you feel bad about? Don't answer if you don't want to.
In what context would depression be healthy?
What constitutes depression in this circumstance?
Good point. This is why I stated that one of the themes where Dostoevsky approaches depression is the suffering of children. I don't know if you read 'The Eternal Houseband', but it is actually a great novel. One of the characters is a child, and she suffers from having an agitated childhood with a dead mother and unknown father. Everything happens here, at this age. It is cruel but realistic at the same time; because some writers only show childhood as if it were a fairy tale. But the reality could be more different.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
Understood. It is not being too bizarre but the absence of parents can make children depressed too.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
I feel selfish because I believe that I don't appreciate my life enough. I complained and behaved childishly in many different ways. For example: destiny and circumstances are often the things that make me feel depressed. I always wonder, "Why does this happen to me?" Or "Why did I make this decision?" etc. While I stick the TV on, and I watch a lot of children dying in Gaza or starving in a random village in Africa. Then I say to myself, What do you complain about? Look how thousands and thousands of citizens actually live! And then, reflecting on that makes me a bit depressed because although my life is "better" than theirs, I believe my life is not always satisfactory.
These kind of dilemmas are found in Dostoevsky. Humiliated and Injured comes to my mind.
Well, in the realm of philosophy it is called philosophical pessimism. My hunch is that philosophical pessimism is more attune with how emotive it is with the aspect of depression professes itself. Might sound like a word-salad but I think there's truth to philosophical pessimism.
I get that and it is a sound enough (if miserable) concept but I would baulk at describing depression as healthy. I suppose it depends on the term depression as well.
"Difficulty shows what men are. Therefore when a difficulty falls upon you, remember that God, like a trainer of wrestlers, has matched you with a rough young man. Why? So that you may become an Olympic conqueror; but it is not accomplished without sweat."
And
"What would have become of Hercules do you think if there had been no lion, hydra, stag or boar - and no savage criminals to rid the world of? What would he have done in the absence of such challenges?
Obviously he would have just rolled over in bed and gone back to sleep. So by snoring his life away in luxury and comfort he never would have developed into the mighty Hercules.
And even if he had, what good would it have done him? What would have been the use of those arms, that physique, and that noble soul, without crises or conditions to stir into him action?"
That helps me sometimes when I'm struggling. Also, ChatGPT is sometimes good to talk to.
The example of Hercules is perfect for what I think. I don't want to become a superman. I just want to know whether I should bear all uncomfortable circumstances or not. I don't want to find a way of escaping through luxuries either. When an ethical dilemma pops up, we have to be ready to act. The big issue here is if I really act accordingly. If not, I am at risk of being depressed. This is incomprehensible, but I get why existentialism fits with my way of viewing the world.
I think it would be helpful to first identify what exactly the problem isin this case, determining which specific type of depression you may be experiencing. According to the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition), depression is not a single, uniform condition but rather a group of related disorders that fall under the category of Depressive Disorders, each with its own diagnostic criteria, features, and clinical course. Given the condition you described, perhaps (with apologies, and please feel free to correct me if Im wrong) two specific disorders might be relevant: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Persistent Depressive Disorder (Dysthymia). They differ in terms of severity and duration. Severity can be formally assessed using the following criteria:
For MDD, the first two symptoms must be satisfied, followed at least by three additional symptoms from the list, lasting at least for two weeks.
Dysthymia is the presence of two or more of the symptoms and characterized by a depressed mood for at least 2 years (1 year for children or adolescents).
The next step, then, is to identify the contributing factors, which I believe is your main interest here. From a psychiatric perspective, all factors can be classified into the following five categories:
Genetic factors include a family history of depression, with heritability estimated at approximately 3040%.
There's no need to elaborate on the neurobiological aspects here, as they mostly concern biological mechanisms.
Social and environmental factors encompass the influence of ones surroundings, such as adverse childhood experiences, chronic stress (e.g., from work), and low socioeconomic status. Personal historysuch as a specific traumatic or tragic eventalso plays a role.
Personality traits, particularly high neuroticism (a dimension of the Big Five model), are associated with a higher risk of depression.
Cognitive factors generally involve maladaptive thinking patterns that consistently interpret life experiences through a negative lens.
Each of these categories corresponds to potential healing strategies. For example, if depression arises from social factors, then expanding one's social network can be highly beneficial. In my view, these categories are deeply interconnected, so the most effective approach is to address all of themperhaps with the exception of genetic factors, which are largely beyond ones control.
Given your interest in the philosophical perspective on depression, particularly through existentialist novels and doctrines, this can be seen as an exploration of the cognitive aspect. If one adopts the view that human existence is inherently marked by suffering and internalizes this belief, then the onset of depression seems almost inevitable. While there may be a grain of truth in Dostoevskys recurring themes of human misery, I think it is misguided to focus exclusively on this aspect. One could just as easily find numerous counterexamples. What often appears to be timeless human suffering is, in many cases, the result of specific historical and political conditions.
Quoting javi2541997
You also mentioned the topic of fairnesssuch as the plight of children affected by recent global conflicts. But contrary to popular belief, I would argue that nihilism offers a better cognitive framework than sheer pessimism, both in terms of psychological effects and logical coherence. In fact, nihilism serves as the starting point for many existentialist thinkers. Sartre, for instance, saw the inherent meaninglessness of the world as the foundation for human freedom and agency. Camus, on the other hand, insisted that the beauty and essence of life lie in the absurd revoltour rational craving for meaning set against the irrational silence of the universe.
Quoting javi2541997
So, questions of this sort are resolved by deeming them senseless. I mean, it's essentially an attempt to find an objective (in the sense of mind-independent) answer to a subjective (mind-dependent) question.
Of course a common response to the premise of nihilism is "why don't you just kill yourself". So it is worth noting that nihilism is the mere assertion of a lack of inherent value in a mind independent universe. One still could affirm or exercise personal beliefs, whether they stem from cognitive (i.e. intellectual pursue) or biological (i.e. happiness) grounds.
In any case, I wish you strength and improvement in your journey.
Quoting Showmee
Those three patterns are the main ones. I believe that suicidal thoughts and insomnia have been by my side for a long time. Before starting to read Dostoevsky, I remember that Mishima was also an important author to understand and approach the concept of death. Specifically speaking, it is worth quoting his following quote: "The Japanese have always been a people with a severe awareness of death. But the Japanese concept of death is pure and clear, and in that sense it is different from death as something disgusting and terrible as it is perceived by Westerners."
But I failed trying to embrace the Japanese way of life and death. I can't see 'heroic' or 'pure' ways to live, so I can't see death in the same way. Furthermore, I believe that dying can be the solution to many problems caused by my circumstances. But, reflecting on it deeply, I still believe that this thought is selfish. For this reason, Western existentialism and Dostoevsky's literature helped me to understand that life is a continuous struggle, that familiar problems exist and children die. I can't do anything but face it and accept that life is the way it is represented in The Brothers Karamazov or Stepanchikovo.
Quoting Showmee
Exactly. But this makes me wonder: who the hell has never experienced tragic experiences or traumatic events?
Quoting Showmee
I can't disagree with that point, but I think it is important to emphasise that Dostoevsky went beyond political factors. The human condition tends to be miserable. Wishing the death of a father (The Brothers Karamazov) or stealing your daughter's money because you are a gambler. People do this, and after that, the following can happen: regretting or not caring. I go for the first option, and I explain to you why: for unknown reasons, people tend to act viciously, and when they understand the moral consequences of their acts, it is too late. Now that the problem has happened, what can we do? If I wasn't ethical in the first place, why am I suffering from my consequences now?
Quoting Showmee
Yes, but I believe that French existentialist writers are a bit naive in their views. I can't say that children dying in Gaza or starving in a random cold oblast is inherent meaninglessness for the sake of freedom. It might help me to find freedom for myself. But, again, what still happens to those children? The point here is that, according to the way I see things, it would be selfish to act pretending that human misery is meaninglessness. At least, it is a cause to make me feel depressed.
Quoting Showmee
Thanks. It was a productive and interesting exchange. Sorry if my grammar and expressions are not very accurate. I am not a native speaker.
Quoting LuckyR
Yes, but the diagnosis of depression gets its sense form a set of grounding psychological hyptheses, and one can then delve into the philosophical underpinnings of the psychological theory.
What is the definition of "meaning" for you? When I use it in the context of "the meaning of suffering" or "the meaninglessness of the universe", I am referring to a conscious-independent purpose or value.
Quoting javi2541997
So when you say this, are you affirming that there is a mind-independent purpose or design that underline those atrocities?
From my perspective, things just happen. If one truly wants to make an objective assertion, then it must be descriptive in nature, not prescriptive or teleological. Of course, it is perfectly human to attach emotions to the things we see and hear, but to ask what the "fundamental" meaning of these things is in the aforementioned sense, I suppose, is meaningless (in a semantic sense). Asking why children suffer from war is the same as asking, say, why it is raining or not raining right nowif by "why" you are not referring to a physical or psychological process or causation, but rather to a metaphysical purpose.
Quoting javi2541997
So here, I would say the first question"Now that the problem has happened, what can we do?"is a sensical one, as it seeks a response within the same dimension of the issue, namely, practicality. However, the second question"If I wasnt ethical in the first place, why am I suffering from the consequences now?"can only be answered if one accepts the existence of "meaning" in a metaphysical sense. Moreover, the answer would vary depending on ones metaphysical stance.
The problem with mental illness is that the mind that is supposed to make use of good advice doesn't feel well and can't just step out of itself. That fact makes overcoming depression, anxiety, obsessiveness, and so on difficult. What the somewhat-to-moderately depressed person does is figure out how to manage under the circumstances. The severely depressed person can't manage, and is disabled.
You sound like a fairly up-beat positively minded person. True enough, you have some problems, but you seem to be dealing with them reasonably effectively. It would be nice if life were perfect, but unfortunately, it isn't.
Keep reading and thinking; stay engaged with other people. I don't know what will happen, but you will probably be OK. Most people end up being OK. Of course, some don't. Some people bring trouble on to themselves, but for most people trouble comes by way of random events like a flash flood, a violent storm, a war, and so on.
Here's some psychotherapy by the eminent Bing Crosby.
Quoting Showmee
I am referring to value. I dont think a purpose is suitable here, but it is true that some acts and decisions are often taken because of a purpose. This is true. But I want to go a bit further: lets say that acting accordingly has good consequences, while being a person with malicious thoughts can make you struggle. This is very basic, but it is where we should start. Now, if I thought that exceeding some limits was actually plausible to get some results, why do I end up regretting it? This is shown in Crime and Punishment, but with the writing talent of Dostoevsky.
Quoting Showmee
I am referring to a metaphysical purpose.
The question is not whether it is pouring or not. The question is not why children die. Everything goes beyond all of that. I dont understand how Cosmos works, and I dont really believe in God. But, for reasons that I would like to know, I am sitting here talking with you on a forum while a child is starving in the Gaza Strip. Why does this happen to the child and not me? I think it is a serious thing to approach. On this matter, I am not very fond of defending predeterminism. I cant buy that some suffer and live miserable lives while others have fun just because the dice were thrown to the air and the numbers decided the will of different children. For this reason, I think it is a good exercise to do an act of empathy with them [the people who suffer]. But exactly here is when the paths crossed. If they suffer because they were born in a place where you cant live (objective suffering) and I suffer because I realise what the human condition is (subjective suffering), then people tend to face dramatic situations rather than happy ones. Accepting that this is the case, I believe it is plausible to wonder why children die rather than why it is raining. The first is a pattern intrinsically human; the second is just trifling.
Quoting Showmee
Yes, I agree.
The focus on human behaviour, and personal circumstances, is good. But why the focus on those which lead to incomprehensible suffering rather those which lead eudaimonia, pleasure and joy? These are the two very different sides of human behaviour.
You might enjoy reading some of Plato's dialogues. He was very well educated in human feelings and behaviours, and wrote about these in a style which is quite entertaining. A couple dialogues which I particularly enjoy, that deal with human relations which are pleasurable interactions, are "The Symposium" (love), and "Lysis" (friendship). After you get a feel for his writing style, you might be inclined to move on to more sophisticated dialogues, such as Gorgias, and Protagoras, where he inquires about the meaning of terms like pleasure, pain, good, and bad in general.
Quoting javi2541997
I think your conclusion here isn't sound. You empathize with people suffering, but not with people who are happy. Why does the one type of person deserve empathy more than the other? And, it is only by choosing this one type to empathize with, that you reach the conclusion that people tend to face dramatic situations rather than happy ones.
Why will you not empathize with people who are happy? Would this make you feel bad (jealous perhaps), because these people are better off than you, truly happy, and you would only be feeling that happiness through empathy? To see others happy, when I am not happy, seems to emphasize my unhappiness, so I direct my attention toward the miserable. Misery loves company. Would empathizing with those who are suffering somehow make you feel good, because they are worse off than you, truly suffering while you only feel that suffering through empathy? If this is the case, then this is not true empathy. True empathy allows you to feel what the other feels. Therefore you ought to see no reason not to empathize with those who are happy. Why not share in that joy?
I see your point.
But let me explain that it is quite difficult to have motivation for (let's say) participating in the joy and happiness of others. I don't think this is a matter of envy or jealousy. It is just that a person under the spectrum of pessimism is hard to find joy beyond the way he sees the world. I believe we should take your point the other way around. Don't you believe that happy people should be the ones who have to empathise with the rest? We are talking about putting some kind of responsibility on someone's shoulders. For this reason, I hardly see that a depressed person must embrace the happiness of others. Keep in mind that seeing the world in such a way is just a different perspective. I don't want to have anything against it. But I would not say it is better to wonder and be concerned about the misery of the world. It seems that according to some, the world is also full of beautiful things. Thus, they see the glass half full. But it is important to understand that others can't bear how incomprehensible life actually is. For one reason or another, there are always more reasons to be sad than happy.
True. Though psychological theory is not limited to the specific diagnosis of depression, which the OP clearly wants to focus upon. Hence my comment addressing depression (not psychological theory).
Can that treatment be found in philosophical writings or literature? Is there a possibility to understand depression at all? Because I feel that depression is very connected to existentialism and the suffering of why life is often incomprehensible. This is the way I see it, but I can be perfectly wrong.
Personally I don't often go to books for anything important. But that's me.
The tradition Dostoevsky comes out of recognizes acedia (despondency) and tristitia (sorrow) as part of the Eight (Seven in the West) Deadly Sins/Thoughts. This first comes up in the writing of Evagrius Ponticus, and makes it to the West through John Cassian. In the West, they get combined into sloth, but the modern usage of sloth is quite far from these in being primarily "laziness" and not necessarily a lack of hope and sadness. A lack of proper hope is considered a vice of the irascible appetites (hope and fear), while sadness has more to do with the concupiscible appetites (pleasure and pain).
You can find a lot of stuff written about this.
Interesting! Thank you for telling me.
I believe it is an appropriate parable to argue that a lack of proper hope is regarded a vice.
Nice point... I will attempt to read all of that written stuff.
I do not know whether these thoughts will help you, but they helped me.
I think despair is when a person realizes that he can't have something that he thinks he needs. Most people think despair is a pit that they need to climb out of. But if you are willing to let go of that thing that you want that you can't have, then despair becomes a tunnel.
You said that you are unable to understand your feelings. I came up with a psychological model years ago that helps me to understand my feelings. (Value) + (Perceived Event) --> (Emotion). For instance, anger is what you feel when you think someone is attacking something you care about. Sadness is the loss of something good. Happiness is the acquisition of something good. Relief is the loss of something bad. Contentedness is the possession of sufficiently good things.
Like in algebra, if you can identify two out of the three things in this equation, then you can figure out the third. You can actively guide your emotions by thinking about what values you ought to have (values are those things which you consider to be good or bad).
It is possible to have a consistent philosophy of life which thinks that existence as a whole is good. If you think that everything that positively exists is good, then bad is only the loss of good things. For instance, if the life of a man is good, then murder is bad because it takes away from the life of a man. If you think that the worst thing that could possibly happen is that everybody dies, or that the laws of physics break and the universe just quits existing, then clearly, it's not possible to have a world that is net evil, because nothingness seems to be morally neutral. The only thing I can think of that would be worse than nothing would be if God were malicious and created immortal souls only for the purpose of torturing them forever, and if God hated himself but was unable to commit suicide. But I don't think there's evidence for that.
So, if you accustom yourself to thinking that nothingness and death is the norm, then you will be able to see the positive good in what exists.
On the other hand, I believe I would only be able to put into practice your thoughts if I were capable of discerning what is important. Yesterday, I learnt something important. What is necessarily important to me and should concern me is not so for others. Children suffering is a good example of this. You say that 'sadness is the loss of something good.' But those infants didn't have the chance to have something good and then lose it.
Furthermore, I still don't see why nothingness should be taken into account regarding the moral uncertainty I am referring to. It does affect me, and it influences me to take one decision or another. Even death has a meaning, in my opinion. I take nihilistic arguments as important, and I respect them, but there is something that doesn't convince me, actually.
For the reasons I expressed above, I wanted to know if thinking that suffering is intrinsically human is actually extreme. Probably, depression and other negative moods lead me to think that way. I can't disagree with that. Nonetheless, I came to the point that people necessarily suffer. It is difficult to focus on the positive sides of life because pain is always present.
Quoting javi2541997
Others here have mentioned CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) and its relation to stoicism). I want to point out the commonalities with phenomenology. For instance, Matthew Ratcliffe has written extensively about depression from a vantage that draws from Sartre, Husserl and Heidegger as well as embodied cognitive theory. Ratcliffe discusses the personal accounts of depression of such writers as Sylvia Plath and William Styron. What he concluded from these accounts is that depression is not just about feelings of despair but the loss of the ability ton discern salience and relevance in the world.
One of the pioneers of this approach was psychologist George Kelly, who characterized depression as the loss of a sense of coherent belonging with respect to others. In order to maintain a healthy core sense of self as competent and connected with others, one must rely on effective and reliable ways of constructing bonds of trust and understanding between oneself and others. When that compass ceases to be effective at insuring such belonging, events lose what gives them their overarching coherence , salience and significance, and we drift though a fog of meaninglessness until we can reconstruct a new compass on the basis of which we can relate intimately with others.
Recommendations for how to do this?
Quoting Tom Storm
Kelly provides various techniques that help us
1) loosen our failing schemes without abruptly abandoning them and leaving us in emotional chaos.
2) experiment with alternative schemes, trying them on for size. One way to do this is to take on a role, like an actor would. The technique is minimally threatening because the person can remind themselves that it is only a role, and if it turns out not to useful they can abandon it.
3) Once a new scheme has been formed in a loose and sketchy way, one can begin to tighten it, testing it out in different real-life situations for consistency.
Hey fellow traveler.
I can certainly see why I'm attracted to the existentialists -- Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus has provided comfort in many circumstances for me when dealing with my feelings of depression in particularly harsh times.
I think most philosophers would prefer not to deal with such topics -- they'd push it towards the psychologists or therapists and such.
Now, if someone is asking for help, I think that's the right thing to do. I'm not prepared to help someone on that level.
But I actually find it therapeutic to reflect on my experiences with depression, or at least what has been diagnosed as such.
Quoting Joshs
I'd be interested in reading those writings of his, if you'd spare a reference for the best place to start.
Here are some places to start:
Depression, Guilt and Emotional Depth
https://philosophyofdepression.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/guiltpaperjune2010.pdf
Experiences of Depression
The Phenomenology of Depression and the Nature of Empathy
https://www.academia.edu/3649407/The_Phenomenology_of_Depression_and_the_Nature_of_Empathy
I'm reminded of the cliché, that a change is as good as a holiday.
Maybe this is where reading has a role to play. In the case of books, we get a very lucid description of the character, and the feelings, and this inclines the reader to develop a very special empathetic relation with the character. However, we ought to understand that this special connection between reader and character is artificial, created and designed by the author. The author uses descriptive terms which can easily draw the reader into a fantasy of knowing, and empathizing with, a person, but the person is not a real person.
You seem to be attracted to reading material which has negative content, stories with suffering. And you empathize with those characters. But this is not likely to be real suffering, it's a fictional description, produced by the author, so that you are actually empathizing with fictional suffering. We might say, and argue, that the author draws on real life experience, and represents some real instances of suffering, but the descriptive terms, which form the basis of your feelings of empathy, are words of the author's choice, chosen with the intent to draw you in. This is not how you actually perceive any real situation, it is a description created by the author. Therefore, it is not an empathy toward any real suffering, it is a creation of the author, designed to feed on your inclination toward sympathy. For example, you are younger than I am, but years ago we used to get UNICEF commercials on TV, where they would show children in horrible conditions of starvation. These pictures are designed to evoke feelings of sympathy, and encourage donations to the cause.
The reason why I suggested reading Plato, is that this is a person who tried very hard to describe human feelings and emotions objectively, to truly understand them. Because of this true approach to human feelings, we can learn from Plato that the good feelings are just as much, or even more, a real aspect of human existence as are the bad.
Quoting javi2541997
What validates this proposal? Human beings have freedom of choice, to choose how to culture their feelings, so long as they are not hurting others. Why do you think that people ought to have a responsibility of empathizing with suffering? That's very counterintuitive. If suffering is harmful, unwanted, therefore bad, why should people have an obligation to partake of, or share in, the badness of others. It makes far more sense for the people who possess the good, joy and happiness, to share this with the less fortunate. And this in no way requires empathizing or sympathizing with the suffering. It just requires acknowledging the fact that those who suffer could enjoy some happiness, and this is something which a happy person such as myself could share with them.
It appears to me like campaigns such as the UNICEF one mentioned above, believe that the way to get people to share the goods with those less fortunate, is to make these people feel, through empathy or sympathy, the pain of the others. And from the effects of campaigns like this, people like you come to believe that you have a responsibility, or obligation, to feel the suffering of others. But this is not at all the case. Your responsibility is only to share your joy, pleasure, and happiness with the others, and this way we all get to feel the happiness. You have no obligation or responsibility to share in the suffering. The problem is that campaigns like the one mentioned, lead us to believe that people will not be inclined to share these goods unless they first feel the pain. In reality though, people are fundamentally reasonable, and naturally inclined toward all forms of human intercourse, and the shared pleasures of life, so there is no need for them to feel pain in order to deliver pleasure to others.
I suspect for some people doing philosophy causes or exacerbates (subclinical) 'depression', and so taking (short? long?) periodic breaks from philosophizing (i.e. reflective inquiry-practice) such as physically demanding hobbies (e.g. carpentry, fitness training, gardening, child/elder care, etc) might help ease the intensity (re: 'being depressed' is what persistent self-doubting feels like).
Sorry, but I disagree with you in that part. Trust me when I claim that the characters and plot shown in Dostoevsky's works are far from being 'fictional'. Furthermore, I believe that they are more real than I could have ever imagined. It is true that he was influenced by specific social and political contexts, but there are themes in his novels that can be applied nowadays.
As I remarked previously, Dostoevsky emphasises the death and suffering of children. There are two good examples of this. One is shown in Humiliated and Insulted where thirteen-year-old orphan Nellie suffers from an abusive household.The other is shown in The Eternal Husband where eight-year-old Liza dies of an illness I can't remember now. But what I can really remember is that Liza suffered from uncertainty because she was raised by an alcoholic that turned out to not be her biological father.
These works investigate the poor human condition of some youngsters, and while they may be deemed 'extreme', they are not fiction. Orphans exist. Children are unwell and can die. Fictional? Romantic novellas are my definition of fiction.
I'm sorry, "fictional" was not the correct word to properly convey the meaning. Let me call it "narrative". The point is that the words, and form, of the author's narrative are intentionally chosen and designed for the purpose of creating those feelings. So you are not actually empathizing with those particular suffering children, by being in contact with them and understanding them, you are empathizing with that narrative which the author has created. This was the point of the UNICEF example. It's not that I believe those pictures of starving children are fictional, but they are portrayals (a narrative) designed to produce these emotions of sympathy.
Because of this mistake on my part, I request that you please reread the post and replace "fiction" with "narrative", as described above, and this will produce a better understanding of what I was trying to say.
On the other hand, since his works are narrative and its supposed to capture our emotions, there should be a beginning and an end. Harry Potter is clearly narrative/fictional because it stimulates our way of dreaming and imagining. But this has an end. Magic only exists for a moment. Yet a starving child or an alcoholic abusive father exists when you close and open your eyes. Just randomly pick a novel of Dostoevsky. I promise every one of them would apply to real-life scenarios.
"I don't want to see the UNICEF pictures either." OK, it is understandable. But the starving child still exists, whether you want to accept it or not.
For this reason, I think that it is important to take into account some authors that help us to embrace pessimism or existentialism. I think it is a good take and another acceptable way of seeing the world.
Have you considered the possibility that you are not depressed, but that rather it is that the world is a bit shit? I have to say you don't come over as depressed, but as quite lively and animated. Is it all an act?
One is supposed to be happy, and thus to be unhappy is an illness. But no; I say it is healthy to be unhappy about injustice and misery and suffering even if one is not oneself so badly off. Don't mistake compassion for sickness. Do not go to your local doctor because a child is starving a thousand miles away. There is no pill that you can take that will nourish that child.
I've considered this many times before. There are times I don't show depression. There are even times I don't feel depression.
But the world remains the same either way.
What I've noticed is that though I see the bad things in the world and they weigh me down -- it's not those bad things which weigh me down. They are merely obvious because I'm prone to see bad things.
Bad things looked at too often weigh me down, of course.But even trying to not notice the various things going on the smallest thing will set me off on a misadventure that I can now identify, and through that identification, stop.
EDIT: Also, I've noticed that people who have depression often emote in a lively and animated way. But then, after having done the performance necessary for them, they return to a place where they can charge up to do it again.
~Samuel Beckett, Endgame
[quote=unenlightened]I say it is healthy to be unhappy about injustice and misery and suffering even if one is not oneself so badly off. Don't mistake compassion for sickness. Do not go to your local doctor because a child is starving a thousand miles away. There is no pill that you can take that will nourish that child.[/quote]
:fire:
Depression is evil. It is a sort of experience that you cannot explain to others who have never experienced it. Evil is a feature of reality; good is another feature. Good and evil are fundamental and necessary. Why a person experiences depression is the subject of discussion!
Why do you think that humans cannot find peace? Why are they not wise enough to judge properly the situation, so everybody gets what they deserve?
You have to work you mind like your body to avoid deterioration either intellectually or emotionally. This does not reject that depression comes from some chemical imbalance (though, the literature on this is sketchy at best and psychiatry is fucking disgusting and unethical most of the time) and that this is is indeed a condition one can be in. Just like being fat. It sucks, and sympathy is called for. But dealing with depression requires doing hard things you don't want to do. As does almost every worthwhile goal in life. Develop habits and discipline.
Now that that's out of hte way - I was diagnosed chronically depressed when I was 14. I was on heroin at the time. I then moved onto drinking when i quit opiates. I made six genuine attempts on my life during this time (14-about 19). The depression didn't go until i got my shit together and started doing good things for myself. Working out, eating well, forcing myself to socialize, not giving in to irrational and clearly fucking stupid thought patterns. I am not, in any way, saying this is easy. I am saying it is simple. It was this simple for me, and I do not know a single depressed person who has come out of it without doing the above. This says nothing but that this is my experience and in turn, my recommendation. Get out there and involve yourself in the good things in the world.
I think it is folly for the depressive to engage in activist causes which distract and further entrench depressive modes of thinking. Take care of yourself first. There seems to me two very general versions of depression: Narcissistic (most common) and nihilistic (externally fixated). Both can be fixed by engaging with the good as a matter of developing habits. As someone said, it is not exactly bad to feel sad about injustice(though, there is a good chance that if you are depressed you are mislabeling things you don't like as injustice - a rather standard intellectually habitual pitfall) but it is absolutely unhealthy and in fact destructive to focus on injustice over your own wellbeing. One need cultivate resilience, courage and conviction (along with flexibility, honesty and intellectual rigour) before approaching the world and its purported problems in my view.
If all else fails, there is extremely good evidence that structured, supported use of psychedelics is more effective than any known treatment for depression.
Yes, I agree! But I would like to find out philosophy and ideas to face depression. I don't want to know why we experience depression in our lives. I already accepted that this comes and goes sooner or later. I believe it is key to try to live with this mental condition.
Do you truly think this is key, and not trying to overcome it? Depression is clearly not intractable, so this seems an odd position is all.
Depression could be due to mental and physical abuse. For example, in my case, one of my boos stole my intellectual properties and published them in his name. This certainly was an abuse of power. I was under spiritual torture as well, which I think was just. We humans are unjust; certainly, we need to evolve further!
Quoting javi2541997
Discussing your situation with a psychiatrist might be helpful.
Quoting javi2541997
I don't think so. A better mental state is the state of peace.
Furthermore, I don't care about the why as much as I care about the "How do I deal with it?"
There are cases where people report no longer feeling that way, but there are also cases that are chronic.
Coming to accept that mine was a chronic condition helped me deal with it. I adopted the attitude of "Well... if it can be cured, then I have to do this or that, and if it cannot be cured, then at least this and that will help me deal with the feelings"
Quoting MoK
Oh, sure. No one which suffers with mental issues would disagree with that, I think. That's rather the point of talking about it.
I've worked with many dozens of people experiencing chronic depression over the years. While everyone is different, it's clear that those who ignore the diagnosis and refuse to seek help often suffer the most and many do not survive. You're right, one can't pick the depressed person from their performance on a forum or even how they seem at work.
What have you found helpful? Has contact with others and activity helped or deepened the experince?
Accepting my feelings was the most helpful thing for me. To give credence to @unenlightened -- if the 20 hour work week is established then I'm pretty sure I could cope with my disabilities without anyone knowing.
After that I'd say balancing alone-time with family-time with work, and medications, has brought me to a place where I can see myself well enough and be comfortable with myself well enough that I don't mind sharing with people who are going through the same thing.
I very much doubt there's a fixall. If I get to be scientistic, that's mostly because I think "depression" likely covers a lot of possible causes.
But even so -- it's a useful term for talking about how you feel.
Let me put it this way. Do you consider it "normal" to experience depressive symptoms when addressing numerous events in one's life which are very "depressing" (in lay terms)? I do. What is evidence of an "illness" (as opposed to a natural reaction) is experiencing depressive symptoms in the absence of any significant negative experiences.
Quoting Moliere
Indeed.
One approach is to consider the language used to identify and describe unhappiness. At one time or another, many people experience fairly long periods of one or more 'states' that do not constitute disease: fearfulness, loneliness, frustration, grief, self-doubt, boredom, anxiety, uncertainty, scattered attention, sleeplessness, irritability, longing, anger, jealousy, etc. Usually these states (like fearfulness or anger) are short. States like loneliness or boredom may have longer duration.
These various states can be pretty unpleasant if they are intense enough, and if we feel too many of them too often. Sometimes people who experience a combo of these unpleasant states claim to be depressed. They may meet the diagnosis requirements, and they may be taking medication.
It might be the case, however, that what one is feeling isn't "depression" per se, but rather, troubled circumstances. One is in debt, say, and one fears losing one's car or housing. One might be chronically frustrated by transportation problems to and from work -- buses that don't arrive, waits that take too long, missed hours and negative consequences at work. Perhaps one's romantic interest has suddenly found somebody else very interesting and we feel intense jealousy (and/or fear of abandonment). And so on.
One or more of these states or situations may make us feel bad (maybe very bad). "Depression" is a handy box into which to place a mix of bad feelings that are sapping the joy of life, BUT it may not be depression. Rather it may be grief, anger, fear, frustration... -- whatever is on offer.
So, getting clarity on on what one is feeling, and what may be causing those feelings, is a rational step in dealing with our emotions.
Concluding that bad feelings are not actually depression doesn't mean one is fine. It just means that the solution may not be found on a therapist's couch or in a pill.
User Survey: On a scale of 1 - 10, with "1" being fabulous advice and "10" being a pile of shit, how would you rate this post in terms of helpfulness?
Sure, but my point was that one does not need to empathize with, or share that person's suffering. The better approach is to share one's happiness with that person who suffers. And this requires only that you acknowledge that the suffering is real, not that you sympathize, empathize, or in any way share in that suffering in any way. You just need to take the necessary steps toward sharing your good fortune with the less fortunate, without yourself sharing in the suffering of the less fortunate.
I find the book of Ecclesiastes helpful. Good things and bad things will happen in life. As the gospel puts it (taking it out of context), "The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike." In other words, good things (and bad things) happen to both the deserving and the undeserving. It might help to bear in mind that the universe is NOT singling you out for bad treatment.
Of course, it is much easier to accept the unfairness of the universe just after one has received unearned benefits.
Sigmund Freud was not optimistic about people being happy. "Happiness" he said "is not in the cards." In a different context, opera star Beverly Sills was once asked if she was happy. "Let's just say I'm cheerful." Being "cheerful" amidst life's various bad experiences is perhaps more achievable than being "happy".
Is there some uniquely ideal philosophical approach for dealing with the bad stuff, like depression?
Happy philosophers are all alike, whoever they are; unhappy philosophers are all different.
I think you have to find what works for you. Maybe stoicism? Maybe pragmatism? Schopenhauer? Your favorite comic? I find Woody Allen helpful.
One cliche that has some truth to it is "If you're walking through hell, keep going."
In other words, don't dwell on the bad stuff. Look forward toward something good. And keep moving.
User Survey: On a scale of 1 - 10, with "1" being fabulous advice and "10" being a pile of shit, how would you rate this post in terms of helpfulness?
I suppose it's because we humans are more beasts than angels human, all too human. Besides, the player never "deserves" the hand s/he's dealt ...
The human condition is miserable and horrible. In most cases, it is only showing the worst part of all of us. Now, you can't say to me to only focus on the nice aspects of life or contemplate a gorgeous garden. I was talking about children suffering, but you also brought another good example. People are greedy. They steal things from others. Didn't you ever ask yourself why that happened in the first place? If I were you, I would have lost confidence in people.
I don't think a psychiatrist can help us in that way. Do you know why? Because the malice of some folks is incomprehensible. And what do you expect to do? To go to a doctor with the aim of convincing me to better focus on the beautiful side of life and leave behind the negative aspects? Sure, I can go to a garden and contemplate the gorgeous flowers, but your intellectual property was stolen, and a child is suffering abuse somewhere.
I agree. But I think I shared a lot of negative experiences along this thread. Seriously, don't you feel sad when a child is abused or when a dog is injured? These are very negative experiences. If you want something more precise, look at what some did to @MoK. They stole his intellectual property! The human condition only makes people depressed!
:rofl:
Your posts are always fabulous!
Points and advice taken. But I don't think stoicism would help me, friend... I tried it, and there is something that doesn't fit with my mood or personality. I would like to stick with the Russian and Eastern European authors. They are helping me to open the eyes and understand the human condition. I don't want to overcome it but just to learn to live with this situation.
That's very wise.
Exactly. The numerous negative events that can and do occur contribute to great feelings of sadness and grief. While some can deal with these events and avoid these sad feelings, that is atypical and many and likely most will experience them. That's a normal reaction and while this normal reaction can be addressed philosophically, for example by focusing on it's normality, to great benefit, having clinical depression in the absence of negative events probably will reap fewer philosophical insights.
I wonder why that is.....
As I explained, when others behave badly, you have no obligation to share in their badness. You ought not let them impart their suffering to you, and your moral responsibility is to share your goodness with them. In Christian tradition this is known as forgiving.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/forgiveness/art-20047692
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/eight_keys_to_forgiveness
Notice in #4 of the second link, that true empathy is derived from sharing your love with the other, forgiveness. This act of giving your goodness to the other, giving your understanding, is the basis of empathy, not a sharing in the other's badness. It is a matter of understanding the other, such that the other feels your goodness, not a matter of feeling the other's badness. This is why true empathy cannot exist through the medium of narrative. Through narrative, the other has no access to your understanding, you merely have access to the suffering of the other.
I think you are trying to make me see that perhaps forgiveness is a good idea to cure my soul. I will not say that is a bad idea. Au contraire, it is a great practice. But, following the examples I shared previously, it will be hard to forgive. You keep thinking that the characters and situations that make me suffer are just narrative. Well, imagine a real alcoholic abusive father. It is not hard too. Unfortunately and sadly, there are hundreds and hundreds of these kinds of monsters. Who is the one who has to forgive here?
It would be perfectly possible that the son or daughter ends up forgiving his/her parents. Nonetheless, the childhood has already been taken away, and they are probably traumatised for many reasons. Forgiveness is an interesting act, and Dostoevsky also explored this point because he was influenced by Orthodox Christianity. I learnt something important from his writings, and that is that forgiveness is not ultimate nor absolute. We have the risk of passing through serious dilemmas when we are doubting whether forgiveness is the right thing to do or not. Furthermore, this only applies to specific cases that we are close to. I can't 'forgive' an abstract abusive father. I know these exist, but it is true that I don't have direct contact with them. I am affected because of the suffering of others who are experiencing that. This is the main issue. I want to be part of their struggle, and I am comfortable with this for the moment.
Peace on you!
I think we haven't evolved well enough.
I recovered from the depression, and now I am at peace! Forgiving is forgetting!
Quoting javi2541997
We have not evolved well enough. I think humans will be alright in the future.
Quoting javi2541997
Correct! In my case, rTMS didn't help. ECT made my depression the worst! I did it all by myself. And I recovered. I hope that you find peace!
"In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him" - Ender Wiggin, Ender's Game(Orson Scott Card)
Enemy could simply be the person doing the wrong, not your enemy.
Very correct!
Sorry you are going through depression, mate! I've been there. It sucks.
In order to have a philosophical perspective on depression, you first need a philosophical perspective on emotion. What are they? My take: emotions are how the unconscious brain communicates with the conscious brain. What is the unconscious brain? Just the vast majority of the brain whose workings we are unaware of, including everything that is instinctual. The conscious brain ultimately decides what to do, taking all inputs into consideration, including all emotional inputs from the unconscious brain.
Usually, what the emotions "mean" is clear by context. Snake, danger! She's hot, I like her. That guy creeps me out. I'm so worried about my kid's future. But, not always. Why? The unconscious brain is not linguistic, it cannot communicate concepts, only feelings. Words, concepts, ideas, that is all conscious stuff. And so, sometimes you are left perplexed about where emotions come from. If this was not the case, therapy would not be a profession.
Compare depression with some of the other negative emotions:
Frustration: This is useless, I'm pissed! (escalate or abandon inefficacious action)
Boredom: I want to do something else! (abandoning fruitless activity/inactivity)
Anger: I've been wronged, I need to do something! (restoring social equilibrium)
Anxiety: I'm so worried, I need to do something! (avoiding future negative events)
Fear: Run! (reacting urgently to a present danger)
Hopelessness: There's nothing more I can do (abandoning futile goal)
Grief: It's gone, I'm so sad. (reconciling with permanent loss)
Depression: I'm... miserable... (???)
The first 5 emotions urge you to take action of some kind. Hopelessness urges the abandonment of futile action. While grief and depression don't seem to demand action at all. One has to ask then, what purpose do these emotions even serve?
Grief, I believe, is about mental and emotional readjustment, about reframing one's goals and one's self of self after suffering an irreversible loss. One cries, one ruminates on mistakes made, on the bleakness and emptiness without the lost someone or something. Then, somehow the psychic wound begins to heal, and we move on.
But with depression, all seems futile, and the emotion itself useless. The depressed can ruminate all day, spend entire days in bed, filled with vague fears and doubts and psychic pain, and they get absolutely nowhere. The emotion seems totally maladaptive, even lethal in the most severe cases.
My theory: depression is a pathological state, composed of some admixture of grief, hopelessness, and anxiety. These emotions, once meaningful, are unresolved, and have become divorced from their original context, so that the patient no longer knows where they come from. Or, if they think they know, they are wrong, more often than not. (If they aren't wrong, then perhaps they aren't truly depressed, but experiencing one of the healthy, contextualized emotions). Negative emotions, instead of stimulating action or healthy readjustment (impossible, since the depressed don't know why they are there), stimulate negative thoughts, which in turn stimulate more negative emotions. It is the worst kind of vicious circle.
I'm going on... does this make any kind of sense?
If the abuse you talk about is in the past, then the narrative is in your own mind. It is how you describe the person's actions to yourself, via memory. You have that medium, your own memories, between you and the actions which are making you suffer. As that medium is your own creation, your own fabrication, you can construct it in two very distinct ways, or two extremes with a multitude of possibilities in between. You can maintain a narrative which has you sharing in that abusive individual's suffering, or you can maintain a narrative which has you sharing your happiness with the abusive individual. Each is fictional, because the past is gone and the suffering or happiness is at the present. Forgiving involves the latter narrative, sharing your present happiness with the abusive individual.
Quoting javi2541997
I really do not understand what is meant by "the childhood has already been taken away". I understand "trauma", but unless this involves unconsciousness, or coma, this is a matter of receiving experience, not a matter of taking anything away.
Quoting javi2541997
Why doubt? It is not a question of whether forgiveness is ultimate or absolute. But it is always the right thing. And, the knowledge you can develop from understanding the other's actions instead of simply suffering from them, will always benefit you in dealing with the person in the future, even if future actions require you to use physical force against the individual.
Quoting javi2541997
The problem here is what I'm trying to get you to understand. That is why I used the word "fiction", as a shock tactic, which disconcerted you. You, "want to be part of their struggle", but it is the struggle of an abstract victim of abuse. There is no particular individual whom you are acquainted with, or even unacquainted with, who is suffering that abuse. It is an abstract idea in your mind. Unless you identify a particular individual, whom you can relate to, and be a part of that struggle, the idea that you can be a part of that struggle is a fiction. How can you be a part of the struggle of an abstract abuse victim? Now you are left attempting to do what is impossible, being a part of the struggle of an abstract, fictional, individual. So you are engaged in a hopeless task, which will never be productive, and always be disappointing. But if you choose a particular individual, to be a part of that person's struggle, you will find that the way is to share your love and happiness with that person, not to share in that person's suffering.
You are giving as granted that I or the child who suffered abuse in the past is now happy. What if the person can never be happy? Although I can agree with you that time can cure the scars and help us to move on, I still see it as hard that a person who passed through that kind of experience could be happy nowadays. I accept that he or she can live a normal life, but nothing more. I doubt they can be happy. For this reason, some of them even start taking drugs. We can pick a random drug addict, and probably this person suffered in the past. I know that there are many different examples and each individual is a different case. But it is difficult to be happy to understand those kinds of circumstances.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I mean, childhood is a period of life that supposedly makes children happy with their innocence, helps them to learn things, provides good and formidable experiences, etc. It is not the period to "corrupt" and destroy their mental state. A six-year-old child needs to watch cartoons or paint drawings, not hide from his abusive father or learn how to cheat or whatever to defend himself. It is not the appropriate time, mate. Childhood is for different things.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Why do you think it is always the right thing?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Because, as I previously explained, I am aware that those situations exist. Probably, I am overreacting a bit; I agree with you on this point. What I am trying to explain is that it is important to care about these situations. It is not about only taking the happy part of life and realising that some cannot even make it. If you think deeply, there are many reasons to give up on happiness, and I can't see if forgiveness can help me at the moment.
This has been an interesting thread with a whole range of viewpoints, including my personal favorite "Snap out of it." I have been diagnosed with a fairly mild form of bipolar disorder, formerly known as manic-depression disorder, but I am rarely depressed as I normally think about it. It usually manifests as anxiety. I do take drugs, but my advice to those of us who want to really deal with this problem is "Retire." I know @BC will back me up on this. For some reason, many people find this advice unhelpful.
Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that nothing I say is a denial that depression is largely a physical, biological, I guess medical, condition.
Some more or less philosophical thoughts:
I have come to see philosophy as a practice like meditation, yoga, or tai chi. It's goal is to make us more self-aware. I think this is true of all such practices. I also see psychotherapy as a practice. I was a very unhappy teenager and like many of those, I majored in psychology when I first went to school. Many people who study psychology are searching for answers to their own anguish. That's why so many psychotherapists are as damaged as their clients, why so many couples therapists are divorced.
Philosophy, especially western philosophy, is a practice focusing on how our minds work, our intellect, how we think. As such, it attracts smart, intellectual, verbal people. Philosopher's are people who think too much and the mental illness of choice for those of us who think too much is depression. And then when we look for a solution, we turn to words, even though it is words that got us into trouble in the first place. If psychology is where fucked up people turn for answers to their unhappiness, then philosophy is where smart fucked up people turn. As evidence, I suggest you just take a look at many of the posts here on the forum.
I think I came to a more focused interest in philosophy with a prejudice that modern, western philosophy, at least, is more a place to hide from our problems than to face them. Here on the forum, I met many people for whom that is true. What surprised me, though, is that there were a few people who used philosophy as a tool, almost a weapon, to take on their problems head on. The first time I remember thinking about that was in a thread with my friend TimeLine. She had a very difficult childhood but she was so smart and so self-aware that you could almost feel her struggle up out of the hole she started in using the ideas Kant, Hume, and all those guys. I found it very moving, inspiring. I still do, and it changed the way I feel about philosophy. That doesn't mean I don't think that for many of us philosophy is still a place to hide.
Clarky, first of all, I really appreciate you openly shared that you were diagnosed with bipolar disorder and manic depression. I understand that this is not an easy thing to do. Mental states and illnesses are still a taboo, and some people think that it is better to hide it. When I was diagnosed with depression, I only told it to my parents and Martín (@Arcane Sandwich). Since then, I was also looking for sharing it here, but I didn't know how. I didn't want to turn TPF in my therapy session. But I decided to start a thread this Monday because I thought that depression may have philosophical aspects to discuss. I do use drugs. I need them at the moment since they help me sleep and keep calm.
Quoting T Clark
Yes, they are all practices, and I think each of them can help us in different ways. Yet I have never experienced good results through psychology or psychiatrists. I felt like I was talking like a straw man, and folks didn't even understand me. For this reason, I found help in other areas. I believe philosophy and literature are very good to face depression, but they do not have the "chemical" effects that the drugs do, so it is obvious that we should ask for professional help when it is needed, absolutely.
Quoting T Clark
I understand what you mean. Western philosophy is a difficult take, and when I started this thread, I wasn't aware if this would work at all because mental states are not really part of 'philosophy of mind', and neither is a practice, as you explained. The texts only make us wonder how our minds work, but I think we should go beyond and turn a bit sentimental. I believe that depression is also a spiritual state. I am not religious, but I struggle a lot with ethical and soul crises. I suffer when I see people suffer. Philosophy would only help me in an objective way, almost boring to get up with the issue. But some authors, like Dostoevsky, helped me to understand and see it in a different manner.
I honestly see Dostoevsky's novels as more helpful than Kierkegaard's or Schopenhauer's. I always did my best at understanding them, but they only talk like life was an essay, and it is more complex than that. On the other hand, some works like Crime and Punishment or The Eternal Husband helped me to have a clear approach to how the misery of life works, the evil of some people and the frustration of why some difficulties happen.
Quoting T Clark
Interesting! What an excellent example. I was talking with @Metaphysician Undercover about how a damaged youngster would approach life later. It is encouraging to know that she was able to progress thanks to the writings of several great philosophers, such as Hume. I wish she could come back and explain why Hume helped her and what aspects she focused on in his philosophy. An intriguing perspective, and thank you for sharing your personal experience and ideas, Clarky. I am also always here to talk if you need to.
We can be subjected to all manner of physical pain from non-human causes, and yet never develop the depression that results from abuse. Why not? Because at the core of the depression lie unanswered questions concerning why the abuser did what they did. Why did they choose you? Does the fact that they targeted you speak to something broken, unworthy or unlovable in you, that you are to blame for their actions? If they were a family member, how can you trust society in general if you cant even trust the people closest to you? Because these questions seem so overwhelmingly difficult to answer, there is a risk that we give up trying, and run instead to sources of consolation.
But there are things we know about abuse, such as that they run in families and can be passed down through generations. This tells us that there are patterns of thinking resistant to insights that can break the chain of abuse. One of these patterns involves translating all of ones unanswered questions into bitter resentment toward the world and the need to punish those closest to one. In its extreme form, this pattern of thinking rationalizes that even someone is my own child, they must be culpable and deserving of rejection.
The best chance of stopping the cycle of dysfunctional relationships and the accompanying self-loathing is, if not to forgive others, then at least to remain open to insights about the perpetrators of abuse that can reduce this self-loathing. Forgiving oneself here is more important than forgiving others. Whether one prefers to achieve these insights in the form of psychology, philosophy or literature, if they do no more than reinforce a sense of victimization, then they will leave you imprisoned in your own anger.
I promise I am not angry! It is true that depression is often associated with anger or makes people more susceptible to being angry. But that's not my case. I said that I don't believe that forgiveness is not a solution in some specific cases. It seems that some of you see it as the better solution to move on, but I think it is more difficult than we ever thought. As you very well said, if a family member abuses me, how can I trust society? And, on the other hand, if I can't even forgive my father (for example), how can I forgive strangers? The closest members of our lives are the most important. If they abuse us or destroy our confidence, everything starts breaking into pieces.
As a result, those complex situations lead us to unanswered questions, as you stated. Keep in mind that I don't even blame destiny for choosing "me", but the fact that the abuse actually exists and the people can be miserable and deplorable. Even though there are also beautiful things in life and there are also people who make great things, those people overshadow all.
I don't see how any of this is meaningful. I took many drugs, chronically, for many years, perhaps as an escape from abuses in earlier life, and I consider myself to have been happy then, and to be be happy nowadays. Happiness is not an unobtainable ideal, nor does it require strict criteria. In fact, the less that you restrict your criteria, the easier it is to be happy. You can provide for yourself, the freedom required to be happy.
Quoting javi2541997
I think it is always the right thing, because I understand the benefits, and I was trying to explain them to you. Again, I suggest you read some Plato, the dialogues are very entertaining, and enlightening.
Effective treatment means understanding and addressing the causes, not just treating the symptom. And those causes, more often than not, are woven into the fabric of a person's life. When that is the case, the long-term solution requires that we examine ourselves, and how we live, and how we function, and how we relate to others and fail to relate. That is legitimate hard work and that is what psychotherapy is about. Without doing that work, the vulnerability to depression will always remain. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. But for most people most of the time, there are no quick fixes & no magic bullets. For most people most of the time, depression is a message. That message is:
We must change something about ourselves.
Nice.
Interesting, but something I had anticipated based on my prior knowledge of how shoddy the work had been leading to these conclusions.
tl;dr: best evidence through a comprehensive academic review shows nothing to link chemical imbalance with depression.
Sorry that I didn't reply for so long. I haven't checked the forum in a while.
If you consider the life of a child to be intrinsically valuable, then the child actually did lose something when it died. If the child is in pain while it dies, that means it is losing its health, health is a good thing. Physical pain is usually associated with loss of health, which you could not lose if you didn't have it in the first place.
I have a young daughter. If she were to die, I would thank God that she existed for at least a little while. I think existing for a short time and then dying is better than never having existed at all.
Values are arbitrarily asserted. So, if you disagree, then I can't argue. I think I can argue that this point of view is logically coherent, however.
Our emotional state is usually in reference to what our expectations are. So, if you want to have the maximally positive emotional state, it is rational to lower your expectations to the minimum. I think a lot of misery in life comes from having high expectations which are not met.
:up: :up: