3 ms·

You agree with his splitting of the body into distinct mental and physical spheres? It seems his contention, based on the wiki, would be reliant on the mind-bod

You agree with his splitting of the body into distinct mental and physical spheres? It seems his contention, based on the wiki, would be reliant on the mind-body duality. This conjecture of his came before numerous neurological discoveries, I highly doubt it'd pass muster as a scientific argument today. Further, as a researcher of mental health, I found the stigma associated with mental health treatment leads to a loss of seeking treatment, which may contribute to suicide or highly reduced quality of life in those whom treatment may benefit. Such books as this one do far more damage than good by perpetuating this harmful stigma.

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
In some instances yes, I do. In others no. The book was written in the 60s and it seems fairly clear now that some mental illnesses have physiological roots. It also seems clear that many issues such as depression, eating disorders, anxiety, etc. are often the consequence of environmental or other non-physiological phenomena. Have you read the book? He doesn't argue that people should not seek treatment. He argues that many mental illnesses don't originate in physiological problems but are instead problems with people reconciling conflicting desires (I'm simplifying a lot here). He argues against compulsory treatment, not voluntary treatment. The author was a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. He is definitely not advocating for people to avoid treatment. He is suggesting that the focus on physiological causes of mental health problems obscures the causes of many such problems and prevents people from resolving them appropriately.
amadeuspagel 8y ago
Mind-body duality has nothing to do with the question of whether mental illness is a useful term. Every character trait, whether it's called an illness or not, has biological roots.

3 ms·

You agree with his splitting of the body into distinct mental and physical spheres? It seems his contention, based on the wiki, would be reliant on the mind-bod

by WhompingWindows 8y ago

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
In some instances yes, I do. In others no. The book was written in the 60s and it seems fairly clear now that some mental illnesses have physiological roots. It also seems clear that many issues such as depression, eating disorders, anxiety, etc. are often the consequence of environmental or other non-physiological phenomena. Have you read the book? He doesn't argue that people should not seek treatment. He argues that many mental illnesses don't originate in physiological problems but are instead problems with people reconciling conflicting desires (I'm simplifying a lot here). He argues against compulsory treatment, not voluntary treatment. The author was a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. He is definitely not advocating for people to avoid treatment. He is suggesting that the focus on physiological causes of mental health problems obscures the causes of many such problems and prevents people from resolving them appropriately.
amadeuspagel 8y ago
Mind-body duality has nothing to do with the question of whether mental illness is a useful term. Every character trait, whether it's called an illness or not, has biological roots.