Psychoanalyst Darian Leader argues that we need a new account of what madness is, and new ways of treating it. Listen to the full audio: www.thersa.org/...
There's precious little psychology in today's psychology, due to the fact that they are desperately trying to fashion themselves as an exact science. That's why there is this near-total reliance on statistical methods. I think you'd have to start at the question of why today's psychology supports neuroscience so much. Not "what are the arguments against", but "what are the real reasons for" it?
Thank you. I appreciate the distinctions Darian Leader elaborated upon. How does one take upon oneself the assignment of identifying and disecting madness vs. normality unless one is already bounded by madness? Perhaps it is normal to be driven by madness until freed from that madness?
Psychosis is the dissolution of the disfunctional ego to be reconstituted as a more integrated and functional whole.One is "sick" prior to a psychosis and this is when the autonomous unconscious produces a psychosis,ie heals itself.
Madness is a state of mind where the person's mind falls short of its devine self which is on morality . A state of being where you can function in society as a trusted and responosble human being Not knowing something is not considered madness by god
How many heal spontaneously? How common are temporary psychotic symptoms? Do people in a crisis react with psychotic reactions that quickly heal, leaving medication superfluous? Is it that diagnosing and medication can perpetuate, through identification and stigmatization, the illness? I'm not talking about myself now, but rather persons I've met.
@ctoon6 that excerpt is taken from a talk that Sir David Attenborough gave earlier in the year. You can watch it here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fK0rXRmC4DQ.html
@Melthornal Ahh. It's good to see you clarify your position; I strongly disagree (I've done MRI-based and cognitive architecture-based research in the field), but I suspect it'd be too difficult to have the discussion on RU-vid; the character limit would be too limiting.
So, what triggers this "reflexive resentment" that can initiate a domino effect emotional meltdown? Stress, the pressure of unreasonable unjust stress. And how we react or better yet, do not react to stress determines whether we think a self destructive thought or not. So, what protects us from overreacting? Objectivity, objectivity begets patience which acts like unto armor, so cruelty cant penetrate to IMPREGNATE a reflexive compulsion to return judgment for judgment, & hate for hate.
@powderdd But you also see, as Leader says in this video, that psychologists are constantly falling back to neuroscience as a crutch. If you read Freud, you know his main intention was to create a Psychological Science. To scientifically examine the mind and to understand it through observations. But there is a general idea that there isn't a way to go from observation of people to a science. That there must be a physical intermediary, ie the brain, to create a foundation outside of the mind.
@ttJinn I've thought of this before. What may be normal to someone may not be normal for another, or even society. The expectation of social normality is a plague.
@Melthornal What kind of philosophical underpinnings do you see in neuroscience, and do you think they differ substantially from those underlying other sciences? I don't think naturalism, for example, is controversial or different in neuroscience and physics.
@powderdd This is going to be multiple youtube message answer: I think you have to consider where neuroscience is coming from. It is a cognitive science. What does that mean? Well, namely it is in the same category of science as Computer Science. There are two main questions in cognitive science: What is information? What is consciousness? Computer science has developed a scientific answer for information, and, really, it is the job of neuroscience to find an answer for consciousness.
I'm going to read Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass soon. Hopefully it will give me some insight on the concept of Madness. Or so I've heard...
@pgunn01 Agreed. Although, I can say this much, simply as something to think about. Are you studying neuroscience, or biology? That was one of the questions my mentor asked me on quite a few occasions. There really is a pretty huge difference between the two.
So what IS madness ? i think it's self explanatory, MADness. To understand madness the chain of causality needs be reverse engineered until you get to the ROOT of ill reasons cause. Most every branch on the madness tree share the same roots, a reflexive resentment. Resentment twists discernment into a judgment/contempt which begets hate that turns to anger then rage, & rage can boil over the lid of reason into madness.Yes, little things DO mean allot, even a seemingly harmless passing thought.
Im really wishing I got more insight to his disagreements with neuroscience though. As a psychology major, neuroscience is nothing but supported in my school and I never get to hear the other side of the argument.
Madness is most the population. Ask anyone are they happy. Those who say yes, ask them which day they prefer, Monday or Friday, ask them why. Of course Friday is the weekend, free time away from a job that demands all your energy most of the week. So we agree that most the week is not good. Ask them how much of life is involved in doing what they want vs doing what they must. You'll find that our lives are full of musts and very little of doing what we would like, even in our free time. Is it easier to experience pain or pleasure? To experience pain we dont need to try hard, in fact our lives are a series of pains with occasional pleasures as 'musts' are a constant, pleasure a rarity. The things that bring us pleasure are also fraught with pain such as most tasty food = unhealthy, drugs = bad, alcohol bad, too much tv, internet, porn, relaxing = bad. We live a narrative, not a life. We live our lives based on a delusion, which is madness. Our lives are actually crap and not worth pursuing but its the fact that survival is bred into us that we continue a lie. From our youngest years we are rewarded to survive, marketed nonsense by parents and school to work hard and it will pay off. We buy this lie even more so due to the terror of the alternative, death. You are all deluded. Life is woeful and you are a coward.
@Melthornal I suppose you might say cognitive neuroscience; building neuroplausible cognitive models with the ability to predict activation in various brain regions.
"bride of Christ" is the life of a Nun, and not a psychotic invention. It is the determination of the Church as instructed and the meaning of the life of a Nun.
How does one obtain objectivity? by watching thoughts until you no longer identify with them. This disconnect allows you to exit subjectivity & enter objectivity. So you control of thoughts, instead of thoughts influencing you. Once emotional equilibrium & objectivity is regained within, this will become patience with influential forces without. Conversely if you are not subjective to reason, you WILL become subjective to those unreasonable. So discipline yourselves, or be disciplined by others.
When we think of madness we think of a person who is not functioning in a manner that Is responsible and caring It could be commen belief that a mad person could also be a danger to others . Someone who does not function as a good hearted responsible angel that god intended us to be . Could a lack of knowledge also be considered madness I know life is eternal and so all life goess back to heaven when we pass from this world . Others do not know this truth , so may fear death and the end of existence . So then they would not function in a manner that is Les.fearful and worries less So if that lack.of belief a madness which causes a mental discomfort And hinders your life I won't bring children into this world becusse it is a cruel harsh world I love and care for children so don't want tbem to suffer Are my thoughts and actions mad beciase if we all thought this way we would die out and life would no longer exist which would be a tragedy Or are my actions one that says we are all going to die so theres no point breeding just to allow another human being to continue on so they can suffer as well Can not knowing a spiritual l truth be a madness
@pgunn01 Neuroscience, at its heart, is a science with no scientific foundation. Each other science has something to fall back onto. Things like DNA/RNA, the atom, fundamental particles, et cetera. Neuroscience doesn't have anything of the sort. A neuron? Hardly a starting point. So you are forced to use an external theory to even begin doing any sort of work at all. I think that is really the main difference between neuroscience and other sciences. Think chemistry before we found the atom.
@The80sKickAss >"you have to disprove the validity of religion ..... its based on faith" You answered your own question. Faith does not give validity to anything, it's defined as "trust, hope & belief". Maybe you have another definition of faith though, and this is some kindof miscommunication?
But I won't cause it's 10:41 and I'm tired and I wish to go to bed Addendum: Don't be afraid to be insane (I believe its apart of the human condition). Just don't hurt anyone (or yourself) There is power in madness, as history has shown.... I think... There is so much profound freedom behind the curtain of chaos and disorder.
@powderdd So I guess ultimately what I am trying to say is that Neuroscientist theorists, which a large body of neuroscience comes from, and psychologists in general see neuroscience as two different things. In one hand, you have a physical application of philosophy and the other a hope for scientific legitimacy. If you look at the literature, you see these two approaches glaring you back in the face. Looking as a philosopher, it is almost embarrassing. As if it were a bad joke.
@powderdd So what does all that mean? Two things. First, like all cognitive sciences, neuroscience is the application of a certain set of philosophies. Namely the various philosophies of mind and body, ranging from Descarte to Kant and everything before, after, and in between. Neuroscience takes a philosophical idea, and tries to find evidence for it in the mind and brain. Ultimately, when you look at neuroscience, it is a watered down, childish interpretation of philosophy back by 'science.'
We do not live in this world without the creator god control in what we do we just cannot see him he governs all of us Everybody believes in a god over 7 billion people they believe in a god they have never seen That is not madness , god makes them believe
@DavidEdwardSchnell True delusion is per definition non-intentional and unconscious. So no, what you describe here is not truly delusional. I give you that media can create mass delusion, but tthen the receiver is not intending to get deluded and/or is not aware of the delusional state that he/she is in. Insofar that he/she is, he/she is not delusional.
@Gorrgrim So the thousands of people who think they're Napoleon, when every logical argument is against them, are also suffering from what you'd term an "intentional" delusion? Can you give an example of a delusion which DOESN'T fit this mould?
@Nuckducker you've never heard of intentional delusion? we've got billions of people who believe in a god despite every logical argument put before them that disproves it.
Drs have believed for many years that we think wirh the brain Which has been proven not to be true by mi5 in connunction wirh my work in spiritual matters It has been proven that we think with the soul not worh he physiclal brain . So were doctors mad to think that we think with the brain or wete they guestimating or assuming And is guestimating and assuming a madness
urgh. First we have Ben Goldberg talking shit about humanities majors ( watch?v=VeXlXamiKRQ ) And now here we have a philosophy major talking shit about neuroscience. This is bullshit, why can't you kids just get along and unify your disciplines together like proper adults. I don't goto school so i can pick sides, i goto school to learn truths. If one (or both) of these fields is demonstrably wrong, then why not just make efforts to remedy that, instead of hurling insults at eachother?
@roidroid no you misunderstood. my point was that you can't disprove religion because is not based on fact. you can only validate the religion through facts. If we were able to prove that jesus never existed the people of faith would say "the proof was put there by god to test our faith." It's an impossible battle to win because one side is using facts and the other is not. so religion will always remain a possible truth because no one can actually disprove it.
@SLRist some people would agree with that statement others would not. You would have to disprove the validity of religion which is impossible because its based on faith and not facts.
