No, it isn't, since the claim of empiricism is that all knowledge is derived from experience. It doesn't matter what analysis is done afterwards, considering that it wouldn't exist in the first place without the sensibility picking up on raw datum from the physical world.

There's nothing "common" about that intuition, and you just invented a new meaning to the word suffering that's in line with your argument, so it's begging the question as well.

​

Either way this is a poor game of semantics and the point still stands. If we accept your unusual definition to suffering, then your argument becomes far less relevant, because barely anyone is experiencing that degree of suffering, meaning purpose-seeking is still relevant to the vast majority of mankind. If we do not accept it (which I see no reason to), then your argument is false as people in suffering do have a use for purpose-seeking. So your argument is either false or irrelevant.

False equivalence though, dread is far from suffering.

people should stop defining suffering as anything that pains them, because the word loses its meaning, common intuition would define suffering as pain so intense and prolonged that it makes people avoid it at all costs, including suicide.

Antinatalism, Efilism and Promortalism would say its impossible to get rid of suffering so we might as well not exist, blow up earth and spare future generation from suffering. lol

Agree with most of above comment by SHGO98. My comments have mostly been driven by the tenor of OP's statements such as "Schizophrenia obviously does not exist" and "It is impossible for psychiatry to be scientific". How about " Schizophrenia... is just a wastebasket for disturbing behavior". In working as a therapist on a mental health unit at Rikers Island jail for many years, the whole jail was a house of those with "disturbing behavior". How is it that a small subset of those inmates were deemed patients, and many of these patients had symptoms of psychosis that clearly set them apart. You can take away the label "schizophrenia" and call it what you will. There are some who distinctly suffer from mental illness, not simply "disturbing behavior". There is nothing new in the claim that mental illness is a label thrown on the disenfranchised so the power elite can maintain control. See Thomas Szasz. I don't believe his views are prominent in current mental health thinking.

Certainly the DSM is an attempt to construct a grid of boundaries that is imposed on a continuum of human problems-- problems that don't easily lend themselves to being neatly divided into boxes. It is inherently flawed, but having no classification system for mental problems would probably make it harder to attempt treatment. Understanding the etiology of such problems is equally vexing. It is a young science, but it's theories of neurochemical causation, or even earlier psychogenic explanations of mental illness are no more "theoretical" than the theories underlying how the sun produces energy-- they are all part of the process of hypotheses building and testing that constitutes science.

It might be helpful for those eager to look for broader, societally induced explanations of mental illness to visit an in-patient unit near them. I have worked in such places for 40 years. That person talking to themselves, eyes focused on some unworldly plane, screaming. How did they get that way ? What about all the research looking at genetic predisposition, at neurotransmitter imbalance. Sure, there are some controversial critiques of this, as cited by OP, but the vast majority of experts in the field believe that something is neurochemically askew. Something that may interact with socioeconomic factors, but something in that individual's brain is different from those without such symptoms. The fact that drug companies may oversell partial solutions or MDs prescribe ineffective drugs doesn't mean they are causing the symptoms, nor does it prove that the causal factors are located in a flawed and exploitative social system, although such a system is certainly an ancillary condition that contributes to individual suffering.

Maybe some should take a step back and remind themselves just how stark a difference exists between asking questions about the composition of water, and trying to understand the relationship between brain and mind. The object of study makes a big difference in how far scientific inquiry can progress ! Because the brain/mind is so complex, perhaps unfathomable, does that mean we should give up ? Of course socioeconomic and cultural factors affect this process, and the profit motive of a capitalist culture undoubtedly leads to exploitation of mental health efforts-- and even adds to the suffering of the individual. No science occurs in a political vacuum (just look at climate science), yet OP makes what I consider irresponsible claims about the illegitimacy of psychology/psychiatry.

Any introductory text on psychology or psychiatry contains ample description of the multicausal nature of emotional suffering. No such text would have the locus of explanation solely residing in the individual -- almost all such books would insure that cultural context, socioeconomic strata, and biological factors are all seen as contributing factors to mental illness. That includes viewing the profit driven, competitive nature of latter day culture as contributing to anxiety, depression, and even psychosis.

I don't believe I am selling a black and white version so as to dismiss how society can affect the individual. I am simply responding to a faulty characterization of the mental health professions.

In prison, psychiatrists are straight up legalized drug peddlers.

Nope, the author of the piece is a clinical psychologist so is considered by society to be more 'authoritative' on the issue. I attended a college in the State University of New York system for computer science. However, I know more about science and philosophy than the average person. In relation to this subreddit I am mostly familiar with Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein and Marx but read just one of Nietzsche's books.

I am not that impressed by the article too much. The Enlightenment, that Spinoza was a part of, was a movement of a growing and confident middle class or petite bourgeoisie. It seems out of place in late Capitalist society.

I prefer the Marxist analyses of Mental Illness.

A squared circle is a terrible example of a paradox. There's much more going in with the phrase than one would interpret in a geometric sense.

The circle in question is not a prototypical circle, they are referring colloquially to a circle on the ground where it is customary to engage in hand to hand combat. Squared is altering that meaning, not the meaning of a prototypical circle.

Squared circle means we have an area meant for combat (just like it's round counterparts that tradition cemented into our language), except this one is square.

It sort of fits into a pattern of "isn't it crazy we drive on the parkway and park in the driveway." Yea.. that's what we call it.. crazy huh.

One might even say that it > lay beyond the framework of signification

>Morals can’t exist outside of freedom.

Non-voluntary income taxes would yield morality impossible then wouldn't it?

>This has to be the case.

What enforces this rule?

>Additionally, the sense of freedom we experience is undeniable.

I disagree.

Thanks for the question :)

I WANNA KNOW HOW YOU USE THIS.

I’m sorry if I am crazy.

I am very much in the deep. So please bare with my mistakes.

the Latina is taking over and i don’t know English.

I’m allowed to say that.

I’m latina cabrones.

viva la raza

Sure. That makes sense.

Imma post in the comments because you can’t tell at what I wrote the comments within the comments.

if you know what I mean.

seriously not in that way.

cochinos.

I’m asexual.

pendejos.

Practically? Yes. I think we have to think this way. It's what all people are under the practical delusion that they can achieve. We are limited and all organisms are an ordered collection of impulses. I don't think we could fully embrace chaos if we even wanted to.

Theoretically? No. All ordered systems will be built out of perception bias of the creators. They are built to ensure that some things that hurt the group they are appealing to are condemnable. But this is a reaction to those things existing to begin with.

For example, to say "murder is bad" helps the vast amount of people in society, but this is only a declaration because there are instances in which murder happens (which means the actor felt justified). This claim of "order" will hurt the murderers. Is this a good thing? Society says yes... for good reason, it generally helps them. But it doesn't help everyone. This is an extreme example that I'm using to make your case, but even in this extreme example I think you can see that the harm still exists. For lesser cases it would just happen more so.

I hope this follows.

I’m too crazy. I’m sorry. Please anyone.

I’m Latina if I didn’t mention. It’s spewing.

I hate that I don’t know how to use this. It looks fun.

and I’m not tryna sound wealthy because I’m sad.

I’m hella poor.

I sleep in the same room as my sister in order for us to have our own room.

and I have trauma of my mother.

anyone down to chat?

also its just that we like to seem like we know what its like to not worry about life. Retail therapy fucking works. And yea.

anyone?

I read the rules and now I’m scared and Jack Stauber is making it worse. I love you.

But please I don’t want this to go to waste.

Imma like Live tweet this shit bc I don’t have twitter nor how to use it.

This might seem like a dating profile thing but I want more people who know what I’m talking about. This was my last resort. The internet is pretty amazing

Anyone read The religion of Socrates by Mark Mcpherran? Or Socrates' Devine Sign by Pierre Destreé?

OP, are you in fact the author of this piece?

Not a criticism - just curious. I couldn't help noticing some of your responses in the thread share certain references, terminology and prose characteristics with the article.

That is Nietzsche point, no one can “free” you from your suffering just you yourself.

On another note, Nietzsche, and this extends to basically every philosopher, they are not addressing people who have its most basic necessities not met for some reason, that is beyond their problem, a problem of the world, Nietzsche is not talking to a person who by forces outside his control cannot eat.

Finally, I would not say Nietzsche is rationalizing anything, this is a very problematic concept in Nietzsche philosophy and he and certainly anyone who has read him would frown at the mention of Rationalization or Reason for that matter.

I have recently come up with a razor (it doesn’t seem to previously exist)and I was wondering about your thoughts on it. The razor is as follows “If something could be wrong, it is wrong”. The reasoning is as follows: When I make an assertion, it may seem right in my head, but sometime in the future someone may disprove my assertion. Therefore, due to this possibility, my assertion could be false. To circumvent believing in an assertion, but to only it be disproved, this razor would come in place. One must ask oneself if the assertion could be wrong. If it is discovered that in some possible way the assertion is wrong, then one should realize that your assertion is disprovable. If something can be disproven, then it can be found as wrong. Thoughts?

Would you consider order that considers everyone a moral good, or is order inherently exclusive to certain groups of people. If you found an order, and it is not harming others, would you find that moral?

Troubled Persons Industries : The Expansion of Psychiatric Categories beyond Psychiatry by Martin Harbusch

Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America by Robert Whitaker

Mad Science: Psychiatric Coercion, Diagnosis, and Drugs By Stuart A. Kirk, Tomi Gomory and David Cohen