Philosophy of depression.

We want something to obtain in the world. The will can be said to represent that desire. The will can be said to be powerless because it cannot actually influence the world. It has no direct force. So, for example, I may want someone to love me, but no level of desire will actually make that desire obtain in the actual world. My willing of someone's love has no direct power over the actual state of affairs of their desire.

So, in effect, no matter how hard we try, we are ultimately powerless. We may gain the ability to exercise our will in some circumstances, but this is not given. At any moment, the universe can block our desire from obtaining, despite our best efforts. And there is nothing we can do about it.

There is a body of work by Matthew Ratcliffe, written very recently, about depression as deep mood. He reaches back to Heidegger, and the notion that mood, in a profound sense, just is how we feel about the world. It can feel all-permeating, insinuating itself into perception, belief and the thinkable. I heartily recommend his work as a starting point. In my studies I've been exploring emotion and mood, I'm interested in how un-emotional the language of analytic philosophy is, and whether emotion reaches into the cognitive.

Quoting mcdoodle

There is a body of work by Matthew Ratcliffe, written very recently, about depression as deep mood. He reaches back to Heidegger, and the notion that mood, in a profound sense, just is how we feel about the world. It can feel all-permeating, insinuating itself into perception, belief and the thinkable. I heartily recommend his work as a starting point. In my studies I've been exploring emotion and mood, I'm interested in how un-emotional the language of analytic philosophy is, and whether emotion reaches into the cognitive.

I would like to quickly assert that I do not think treating depression as a pervasive mood, is fruitful, regardless of whether it is true or not. This is because depression, whether it is rational (a set of beliefs about the world) or emotional (a mood that has arisen, somehow), can only be treated rationally.

So, what are these 'set of beliefs' about the world? One of them is powerlessness. Resulting from that powerlessness comes along helplessness. So, one then feels powerless over them being helpless, and then follow a whole range of other emotions.

Reply to Question I don't understand, part of the point of the approach that depression is a pervasive mood is to enable a person to be empowered in relation to it. Moods are not intractable. The philosophy of emotions that I enjoy doesn't make a rational/emotional split in the way youre describing. Rationality is built on premisses that include emotional ones. And emotions are themselves often judgments, and, some would argue, perceptions. If we're to understand the world of our feelings, we need to devote our rationality and our emotional intelligence to the job.

Reply to Question

You need to come to terms with your monster, your avatar, swimming around in its amniotic lake.

Personally I believe that depression, so long as it is not a biological issue like a chemical imbalance or whatever, stems from an extreme disappointment or disillusionment with the world. Only optimists get depressed. But then again I think we all have a bit of optimism in our character that cannot be purged.

I can't help but see depression (melancholia as it used to be called) as an affective malady. Affective, meaning that it is rooted in a perceptual or cognitive maladjustment. But this is an existential matter - existential, meaning 'pertaining to existence', rather than a medical issue per se. There is strong social pressure to 'medicalise' depression, in other words, to declare it something medical or hormonal or chemical, because of the generally physicalist attitude of current culture. After all if it's physical, then it's something the natural sciences can treat. Whereas if it's existential then it might really be a philosophical problem, and the medical profession can't necessarily help with that (or it will dismiss the required philosophical analysis as 'navel gazing' or as a 'chimera of the human mind' as many do on this forum. Although that is not to deny that there might be endogenous depression which is not amenable to cognitive analysis.)

I would have a look at Jules Evan's book and also his approach which combines elements of CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) with elements of traditional stoic philosophy. It is like a program of philosophical therapy.

I'm also an advocate of the value of physical fitness as an antidote to depression. Enrolling in a course which makes strong physical demands and lifts your overall level of fitness has been shown to be effective against depression. I took up jogging in my twenties, and discovered I could actually run for 8 kilometers or so, at a fair clip (those days are long gone!) But the resulting endorphin rush, after a shower and a cool down, was amazingly effective at dissipating negative emotions.

The hindsight of living with, and nearly dying from, depression starting when i was 18 is much clearer than the mindset i had during it. That is probably to be expected. Not saying that i tap dance through every day, but the depression has been gone for a long time. I would say the depression had three main aspects. Firstly, just a big bundle of unexpressed, difficult, and powerful emotions. Something inside me wasn't going to let me do anything until i dealt with some of these emotions. Before which my general attitude towards such things was along the lines of "feelings are for kids and grandmothers".

This leads into the second aspect: unintentional self-sabotage. Not saying that i or anyone else is to blame for a state of depression. But, as Wayfarer suggests above, there is at least an aspect of depression that one may have unwittingly contributed to, and (more optimistically) something(s) one can do to lessen the intensity of the suffering. Negative thinking, bad nutrition, isolation, sleep disorders, chemical dependency, etc. are going to have an effect on someone. And it most likely won't be a pleasant one.

The third aspect is kind of the wildcard. It is even more mysterious and impenetrable than the first two, because there is nothing necessarily to be done or learned or changed or expressed. One could call it the Dark Night of the Soul, as the mystics did. The only thing to do with this aspect is to simply endure it, while working on the other aspects. Isn't there a saying about depression being a natural reaction to an insane world? But perhaps some period of depression is good for a person in the long run, assuming they survive it. Soul searching, growing deeper roots, and so forth. Who knows for sure? The mind is as mysterious as the moon, on whose dark side depression dwells.

It has been said that "if you are not depressed it's because you're not paying attention."

That's something of a political joke, but there is an element of truth in it. Some people focus so much on what is wrong with the world that they become very negative about everything. Dark clouds gather over their heads all the time.

But... if the world seems to be seriously out of kilter, it's difficult to overlook that and act as if it wasn't true.

Some people are always calm, up-beat, positive, cheerful, outgoing, etc. The 90 year old man from church who's 70 year-old son died a week ago is like that. He's probably been that way his whole life. Why? Don't know. It's probably not his personal achievement -- it's probably just the luck of the draw. My father was that way too, but it didn't rub off on me. Dad had as many reasons to be unhappy or depressed as anyone else had, but he wasn't. It's a gift, not a personal achievement.

Depression is a diagnosis -- meaning that it is a term for an illness, with which there is at least the desire for a cure and a set of symptoms which indicate that this description of the illness is true and this cure is what is needed to extirpate said illness.

One thing about depression, though, is that while its symptoms are well defined, it seems that the personal experiences of the afflicted have varying degrees of difference. Perhaps this is just mis-diagnosis in some cases, but I'd wager that the way we understand "depression", and our lack of understanding of mental workings and health, is also partly at work in the variation of experiences and cures with depression. It seems to me to be a bit of a catch-all term which works better than no term, but which is likely identifying a larger set of intermingling parts which aren't well understood.



I think you're kind of straying off the topic of depression in talking about impotence, or the im/potence of the will. Depression can have an effect on willpower, but this is something which is more particular and isn't really a meta-logical observation about depression or mental illness, and one can experience impotence without depression. It seems to me that one experiences impotence when they desire something which is outside of their ability or power to obtain. So, sure, depression can lead to feelings of impotence as it hinders one's ability to do even little things in life, but the two are still quite distinct.

Which topic is it you were wanting to talk about? Impotence or depression?

Quoting Question

Specifically, when a philosopher point out that the will is powerless, what does he or she mean by that?

There are a number of factors to consider and while epistemological, metaphysical and even ethical are important in considerations of the nature of mind, conceptual frameworks are often ambiguous and as such the primary problem is defining what depression actually is. I am of the opinion that depression has a link to a series of cognitive errors, that as we form our own subjective narrative, it conflicts with the epistemological narrative given to us to explain our social and environmental 'reality'. As children, we lack the cognitive capacity that coerces dependence on others, but as we mature and develop and start to form a sense of our own identity, what we have meaningfully framed as reality does not sit comfortably with us. We just don't know why at conscious level because in some ways we are 'new' to thinking independently.

We soon become afraid in a way from this existential reality; shit, that guy called my father who I (naturally) have a strong emotional attachment to is actually a bad person and I long believed I needed to live up to his expectations when he is actually an idiot, for instance. Most people in depression are caught between the two realities, not yet capable of forming this autonomous dialogue within themselves that objectively separates them from a mindless dependence on the meaning given by the external world. The powerlessness is really just being unable to raise to consciousness our own autonomous decision-making, of separating ourselves to engage and experience the external world and reconfigure our capacity to rationalise and develop meaning with reason and independently. What that means is that a depressed agent has not yet learnt how to think objectively; the idea of believing that you can detach yourself from infantile emotions that have caused you to latch irrationally to your father - despite the fact that he is a bad person - and that somehow the association of these emotions are permanent is an example of how we confuse ourselves with false judgements of intentional states.

The best way to achieve this autonomy, to separate oneself from infantile emotions and mature to rational emotions, to begin thinking objectively is through considerations of conscience, morality or empathy. To have a genuine, empathetic experience engages you into a dialogue that separate your immaturity and the experience of derealisation. This dialogue with ourselves toward the external world has not yet matured and the really unfortunate problem is that depressive people who experience this existential angst (feeling lost and confused) often fail to take care of themselves, whether it is with the people they choose to associate with, taking drugs or drinking excessively, unable to work or study etc. that they begin elongate the derealisation and never actually attempt to mature the process of accepting their autonomy.

This is mostly caused by the fear of dislodging from one's environment, as though there is a yearning to be yourself but a powerlessness caused by the fear of losing the people and identity you have formed around you. It is almost like you are trying to shut yourself down to cope and live with an environment you are not really happy with, but you cannot articulate that to yourself consciously.

It is why one becomes empowered when they begin to appreciate their autonomy and separate themselves from their own enslaved faculties and social environment. It is about taking responsibility and developing that independent thinking, to speak your own narrative by reasoning objectively. Which is why Reply to Cavacava is actually correct, that the best course of action is to encourage a dialogue, to try and understand what inhabits your mind and perceptions and whether the meaning you hold of things - though most people may believe it to be true - is true to you. To not be afraid of loss because there is so much to gain the moment you actually begin to experience reality and form meaning as you want to.

Quoting 0 thru 9

The third aspect is kind of the wildcard. It is even more mysterious and impenetrable than the first two, because there is nothing necessarily to be done or learned or changed or expressed.

On the contrary, there certainly is something learned, changed and expressed and it is penetrable, it just takes some time developing that skill and we often delay the process because we become disillusioned by the emotional angst that we simply just want it to go away. I am glad that you have more clarity that has enabled you to avoid the depressive experiences that had almost killed you (well done, seriously, you should be proud of yourself) but one thing that I am afraid of is that some people learn to tolerate rather than confront the causal actuality of the depressive state, its reasons for being there in the first place, and that could mean that it is merely lying dormant and inevitably return in the future.

For instance, some people conform to their environment, give up and allow others to form their identity and decisions rather than doing so for themselves and though they are completely miserable, they feel secure and that is more to them than experiencing the negative sensations that depression can evoke. Indeed, while going through the depression one would need to continue fighting to survive the alluring need to shut down, neither to be controlled by the powerlessness that it permeates and instead focus on taking one step at a time, to cross each bridge when you get to it. It is so important to learn to take care of yourself and resist the harm and sabotage to our happiness that we inflict and this requires an objectivity, a way to rationalise what could harm you, confront what makes you unhappy, focus on a purpose and plan for the future. To do this one step at a time is by piecing one puzzle at a time, articulate a narrative of this 'mysterious and impenetrable' realm, to form a dialogue and communicate as you begin to improve the language of your own voice whether through writing or speaking or art and music.

Once you begin forming your own autonomous language and develop meaning of the external world according to your own interpretation, you begin to see objectively the causal roots for the initial depression and its relationship with your history, your present social and environmental conditions, and ultimately your future as you begin to experience reality rather than experience learned perceptions of a false reality. It is penetrable and you will forever remain empowered.

Reply to Moliere
Quoting Moliere

Depression is a diagnosis -- meaning that it is a term for an illness

Why is this misconception so popular?
Depression is a mental disorder, not a medical condition.

Quoting Moliere

Depression is a diagnosis -- meaning that it is a term for an illness, with which there is at least the desire for a cure and a set of symptoms which indicate that this description of the illness is true and this cure is what is needed to extirpate said illness.

Compare:
Rabies is a diagnosis...
Possession by devils is a diagnosis...

It sounds a bit odd. Following the use/mention convention, you would be better to say that "depression" is a diagnosis - a diagnosis is a naming, not an illness (or even a disorder) - but personally I like the old-fashioned term here, that depression (not the name this time) is a 'complaint', because one can name the complaint without making unwarranted ontological assumptions one way or the other. Thus one can say that homosexuality is a complaint whenever someone complains about it, even if the current medical response is 'get used to it'. It used to be considered an illness to be treated, and so did possession by devils.

One does not see many threads on the philosophy of possession by devils these days, nor on the latest cures for homosexuality. And there is a change of language in the reporting of the latter - not 'I've got homosexuality', but 'I am homosexual.' And this is where, I see the op heading - towards a position where one no longer wishes to be 'cured' of being the person that one is, even if one happens to be a melancholic.

Patient: I keep thinking I'm Moses.
Doctor: Keep taking the tablets.

Quoting Question

However, I don't think depression ever ceases to exist.

For those who have depression you mean, or for everyone? Because not everyone has depression.

I can't help but notice almost everyone aligning in the same group, which believes that depression is a mood. That's like the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Let's assume for a moment that yes, depression is a mood, then what? Cheer up? Take your meds, which for the matter you'll most likely be dependent on for the rest of your life if you keep on treating depression as a mood.

Anyway, how do you even treat a mood? Sure, I might go to the circus and laugh and then come home; but, doesn't that make me dependent on going to the circus to feel better.

My point, in part, is pointing out that depression has become a dependency disorder. People feel powerless, then helpless, and go and see a psychiatrist, which actually is not as rational as one may think such a thing would be to do. This is because psychiatry adopted the notion that depression is 'mood-disorder' and to treat this mood disorder one ought to take the happy pills.

I'm not sure if I should continue. Anyone see this side of the 'condition'? To call it a disorder would only exacerbate the disorder, if not already by a wide margin.

Reply to Question

Quoting Question

Anyway, how do you even treat a mood?

I answered that in your last thread: through reflection.

I don't know who fooled you into taking meds for depression but you're the one complaining it doesn't help, so why do it?

Quoting Question

To call it a disorder would only exacerbate the disorder, if not already by a wide margin.

I don't see why. People calling me ill while I was depressed was instead what was exacerbating my disorder.

Quoting Noblosh

I answered that in your last thread: through reflection.

Reflection without a guide can lead to deep moods that are characteristic of major depression. One does not feel that depression is a state of mind; but, rather something real and concrete about how one ought feel about the world.
Quoting Noblosh

I don't know who fooled you into taking meds for depression but you're the one complaining it doesn't help, so why do it?

In part, because I am a social animal, and also believe that depression is something that is in part rooted in a biological imbalance-but, I also realized that depression is largely a product of emotional reasoning (to borrow the terms from CBT) and also a result of a deep mood, that has arisen from melancholy and mental time traveling (rumination, not reflection).

Quoting mcdoodle

I don't understand, part of the point of the approach that depression is a pervasive mood is to enable a person to be empowered in relation to it. Moods are not intractable. The philosophy of emotions that I enjoy doesn't make a rational/emotional split in the way youre describing. Rationality is built on premisses that include emotional ones. And emotions are themselves often judgments, and, some would argue, perceptions. If we're to understand the world of our feelings, we need to devote our rationality and our emotional intelligence to the job.

Returning to this rather important point, I think that the truism in philosophy about rationality being the handmaiden of the passions is worth bringing up. If one subscribes to this notion, then rationality is only something instrumental to the passions and can't help in treating such emotions. That would be untrue based on experience and empirical results from rational behavioral therapies such as CBT, REBT, etc.

Quoting mcdoodle

Rationality is built on premisses that include emotional ones.

There's nothing emotional about synthetic a priori judgments, like "I am depressed".

Some more random thoughts on this subject...
Calling it a "mood" seems like it is being shrugged off or taken too lightly. I don't get the impression that anyone here is not taking this subject seriously. Not quite sure how to define "depression", but of course it is a life or death issue, or at least can turn into one very quickly. Calling it a "disorder" is fine, though it seems to make it inevitable to see a doctor/take medications (which seems to be a package deal). But if someone is feeling trapped, they probably best seriously consider seeing a professional.

At least, one could have the experience and judge for themselves how helpful it was. I was on a few psych meds long ago. In my case, they didn't seem to be helpful and maybe causing new problems. So i wanted to get off the meds. Fair enough. But being a impulsive teenager at the time, i just went cold turkey and stopped taking everything instantly. For those unfamiliar, that is a very very dangerous thing to do. Luckily, no one was hurt by my reckless if well-intentioned action.

A large aspect of my particular depression was intertwined with a sleep disorder called delayed phase disorder (basically staying up all night, then crashing in the morning). Honestly don't know which came first, the depression or the sleep disorder. Either way, it was a feedback loop. So i tried melatonin as a sleep aid, and very soon the depressive symptoms waned. Now melatonin is a powerful synthetic brain hormone. So it should be taken seriously and carefully, even though it available in the USA over the counter. Serious research on this supplement and how it could interact with medications would be advised. But i just wanted to mention that it made my life bearable again, and eventually even enjoyable. Other things helped too, like eating fresh fruits and vegetables. This is only my experience. Your smilage may vary!

Reply to Question
Quoting Question

One does not feel that depression is a state of mind; but, rather something real and concrete about how one ought feel about the world.

I see you've embraced your monster which was definitely not the point. I'm not arguing depression isn't real, I'm arguing depression isn't an absolute truth and that you're the one giving it that importance.
In the end, it's just a disorder one needs to solve to restore order.

Quoting Question

My point, in part, is pointing out that depression has become a dependency disorder.

Perhaps this dependency rests of your desire to maintain it? I knew a woman who had constant anxiety, her emotional malady always present despite years passing and I soon realised that despite all the advice given, she was unable to perceive what happiness actually was to her that her happiness almost became the anxiety. It is alluring to smoke cigarettes to alleviate feelings of stress, but the poison infiltrates your system to enable a false idea of dependence that a person actually begins to believe that they need to smoke despite the fact that it is actually because of the cigarettes that they prolonging the anxiety and killing themselves in the process. Her identity was in part formed by the anxiety she experienced that she created and unconsciously nurtured a life that enabled her to exercise this dependency. She had 'poisonous' people all around her.

It is not a mood disorder, but the mood itself is a result of a number of factors and they appear to be factors you may just be attempting to justify. You have the audacity to say [t]here's nothing emotional about synthetic a priori judgments, like "I am depressed" and yet seemingly avoid discussions pertaining to the decision-making, cognitive functioning, the phenomenological based on identity and the ethical application necessary to establish a clear mindset that empowers and thus alleviates the feelings you discuss.

Some people desire the depressive state because it enables them a justification to avoid responsibility for taking control of their own lives.

Perhaps ask yourself this; do you enjoy depression?

Question: I know that a certain man was visiting her house when the husband and kids were at school (every Thursday), and they were having sex. Now, this guy looked like the type you see in porn shoots. Bald head, shaved legs, tall and muscular, wearing khaki shorts with black glasses (funnily enough similar to the type you see from police officers but I digress).

Reply to Question You are perpetuating a rational/emotional divide that I disagree with. I'm neither a cognitivist on the one hand nor a Humean on the other. Reason and emotion intertwine in our judgment. That's the sort of creature we are. Reason can't float free of its premisses.

Reply to Noblosh I'm afraid you're going to have to draw out the difference for me. I'm not understanding what you're saying I'm wrong about.

Reply to unenlightened That is fair. I don't mean to say depression is just something we say, but I am trying to distance it from a notion of a distinct and well understood disorder at the same time. I'm doing a messy job of trying to understand depression as within a particular frame -- not to say that there isn't something real underpinning what we call depression, but only to say that whatever understanding of reality is there is not quite as definite as our understanding of, say, type 2 diabetes, given the diversity of experience with and cures for depression.


And, true, I hadn't thought of that transition from having to being. That certainly does tie in the transition that I saw as being a bit divergent from the opening. Though if that be the case, I'd note that I prefer the frame of "having" to "being" -- I don't know if that's good for everyone, but I know i prefer such a framing for myself.

Quoting TimeLine

I knew a woman who had constant anxiety, her emotional malady always present despite years passing and I soon realised that despite all the advice given, she was unable to perceive what happiness actually was to her that her happiness almost became the anxiety

I know quite a few people like that. Abraham Lincoln said 'folks are usually about as happy as they make their minds up to be' which I have always found a rather challenging saying. Another was something my father used to often quote from Thoreau, that 'most people live lives of quiet desperation' (which I'm sure he often felt.) But, that is what I always understood philosophy and spirituality to be the remedy for. There is not enough attention paid to that understanding in Western culture at all, it has been almost completely lost.

It is what it is, and I think that we should call it what it is, once we know what it is, contrary to Question's approach that we should treat depression as this[/I] or [i]that based on how fruitful it will or won't be to do so, regardless of the truth of the matter.

I also think that the opening post only focuses on one particular form of, or aspect to, depression, rather than depression as a whole or other forms/aspects.

And I don't agree that depression never ceases to exist for those who have been depressed at one time or another. It's not something that you're stuck with for life, but something which can come and go. I reject this false dichotomy of either being depressed or coping with depression, and everyone else must be in denial. There do exist people who, for periods of time, are genuinely neither depressed, nor coping with depression, but for whom depression has no place in their life.

Quoting Sapientia

And I don't agree that depression never ceases to exist for those who have been depressed at one time or another. It's not something that you're stuck with for life, but something which can come and go. I reject this false dichotomy of either being depressed or coping with depression, and everyone else must be in denial. There do exist people who, for periods of time, are genuinely neither depressed, nor coping with depression, but for whom depression has no place in their life.

To play devil's advocate here, do you think that merely eliminating symptoms of depression, say by the taking of medicine, also eliminates depression at one's core?

Quoting Heister Eggcart

To play devil's advocate here, do you think that merely eliminating symptoms of depression, say by the taking of medicine, also eliminates depression at one's core?

That's a loaded question. Perhaps I reject the assumptions in your question, like the notions of depression at one's core and of asymptomatic depression. There can be asymptomatic diseases, but maybe depression isn't quite like that. There's usually a test for detecting asymptotic diseases, but how would you test for asymptotic depression, if there even is such a thing? You could look for behavioural signs, I suppose. But the fact of the matter is that someone is either depressed or is not depressed, and my point was that the latter does not necessarily mean that this someone is nevertheless coping with depression.

Quoting Sapientia

And I don't agree that depression never ceases to exist for those who have been depressed at one time or another.

Confession:

The thing that ended my long stretch of depression (25 years worth) was a crisis in the lives of my partner and myself. I was fired when I was 60 from an agency I deeply loathed (the staff, not the clients) and decided I couldn't stand looking for another job at that age. My partner had been quite depressed for several years--part of his fairly severe bi-polar disorder. In 2009 he was diagnosed with cancer and died about a year later; it was s difficult and exhausting year. I grieved his death deeply, but then one day...

...early in 2011, I realized I wasn't depressed any more. I still grieved Bob's passing, but I began to really feel that my life had changed, oddly for the better. I started to regain the ground lost to depression. My concentration, memory, decision making ability, sense of well-being, sleep, all those things. Mostly, though a sense of being happy -- despite it all -- took over. I haven't felt depressed since. I still take a small dose of Effexor (partly to stave off very physically unpleasant withdrawal).

What happened was that leaving the workforce and Bob's death resolved long standing burdens. I wouldn't have done anything different, but I was glad it was over. I could not have engineered a resolution so effective.

The truism is proved again, "Therapy means change, not adjustment."

Misery breeds company, no matter how happy you are. No one is truly happy in a miserable world. I think that when you're truly happy, then everything becomes about everyone else, because they're all such downers...

Quoting mcdoodle

You are perpetuating a rational/emotional divide that I disagree with. I'm neither a cognitivist on the one hand nor a Humean on the other. Reason and emotion intertwine in our judgment. That's the sort of creature we are. Reason can't float free of its premisses.

That is factually not true. Most therapy is done through rational means, such as searching for the root cause or trying to figure out what emotions are being held back consciously or unconsciously. Furthermore, there's the fact that two plus two will always equal four in base ten regardless of how we feel about that formal judgment.

Quoting TimeLine

It is not a mood disorder, but the mood itself is a result of a number of factors and they appear to be factors you may just be attempting to justify. You have the audacity to say [t]here's nothing emotional about synthetic a priori judgments, like "I am depressed" and yet seemingly avoid discussions pertaining to the decision-making, cognitive functioning, the phenomenological based on identity and the ethical application necessary to establish a clear mindset that empowers and thus alleviates the feelings you discuss.

Well, all of what you have said, I presume, appeals to reason and not emotion. Sure, there's emotional reasoning; but, depression tends to be treated most effectively through reason and not pills that emulate an emotion.

Quoting Sapientia

It is what it is, and I think that we should call it what it is, once we know what it is, contrary to Question's approach that we should treat depression as this or that based on how fruitful it will or won't be to do so, regardless of the truth of the matter.

No, it's not a matter of passing judgment; but, being pragmatic about depression. If we treat it only as a mood, as most people do, then we're left with the happy pills. If we treated as a resultant deep emotion about the world, then we are forced to begin an investigation into how that deep emotion came to rise about. That's what I guess I'm trying to say.

Depression is an illness just like any other. To me depression is as much philosophical as congestive heart failure.

There's something going wrong in the brain/mind of a person who suffers from depression. We don't know the mechanisms behind depression because we lack scientific knowledge of what exactly is going on in the head of a depressive.

Quoting 0 thru 9

This leads into the second aspect: unintentional self-sabotage.

Your post is really the only worthwhile post in this thread, 0 thru 9. The three aspects you mention, and especially this (gently worded) note about self-sabotage are key points. As a chronic depressive, I agree with everything you say here. I suspect those in contention with these finer points that various folks are bringing up are people who haven't actually dealt with major depression or suicidal thoughts. The cycle of miscommunication continues ad absurdum.

Quoting Sapientia

It is what it is, and I think that we should call it what it is, once we know what it is, contrary to Question's approach that we should treat depression as this or that based on how fruitful it will or won't be to do so, regardless of the truth of the matter.

So, do we know what it is? We have to wait until we know what it is to call it what it is? And Question is calling it "this" or "that", which is, what? What it is? Or not? What?

Quoting Sapientia

There do exist people who, for periods of time, are genuinely neither depressed, nor coping with depression, but for whom depression has no place in their life.

I may be mistaken, but I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise. Actually, that's a hallmark of this problem; there are those who have never experienced depression. Those people, in fact, don't know what the experience is like, and can therefore add no meaningful thoughts into the discussion.

Quoting Question

That is factually not true. Most therapy is done through rational means, such as searching for the root cause or trying to figure out what emotions are being held back consciously or unconsciously.

But how does that actually support your claim that the rational/emotional divide "is factually not true"? So, therapy searches for a root cause, it tries to figure out what emotions are being held back. How do those probing actions indicate that the rational/emotional divide is false?

Quoting Purple Pond

There's something going wrong in the brain/mind of a person who suffers from depression. We don't know the mechanisms behind depression because we lack scientific knowledge of what exactly is going on in the head of a depressive.

The problem is that the brain is a different organ than the heart, for instance. Depression is an "illness" that has to do with cognition, at the very least. That's a whole different game than congestive heart failure. The heart pumps blood, but it doesn't house the entire neural network that determines how we interface with our experience.

Quoting Wosret

Misery breeds company, no matter how happy you are. No one is truly happy in a miserable world.

How does this add to the discussion about depression? This is like my uncle telling me to "buck up", basically. This is a classic example of not being able to empathize with the depressed.

Reply to Noble Dust

No... I'm afraid that it's nothing you haven't already heard a million times before... that's why it's hardly worth saying in the first place. You're not going to think of something new. Fine some secret, get an aha moment, or in any way think and suppress your way out of it.

It won't be finding something new, it will be breaking down and accepting something you already know.

Quoting TimeLine

Perhaps this dependency rests of your desire to maintain it? I knew a woman who had constant anxiety, her emotional malady always present despite years passing and I soon realised that despite all the advice given, she was unable to perceive what happiness actually was to her that her happiness almost became the anxiety.

This is another key point. But, the dependency doesn't rest on the desire to maintain it; the dependency rests on an inability to see and act on the skewed way of life one is living. I too know people like this, and am one of these people myself; I'm aware of that. It's not that these people are unaware; it's that they're unable to make the change. There's a certain strength of the will that they (we) lack. there's a certain build-up of emotional and spiritual detritus that leads to an inability to cope with anything, or deal with anything real. This is what leads to the "alternate reality" of the depressed, the addicted, the suicidal. It is exactly that, and don't mistake it: this world is an alternate reality; a nightmare world.

Quoting Wosret

No... I'm afraid that it's nothing you haven't already heard a million times before... that's why it's hardly worth saying in the first place.

Right.

Quoting Wosret

You're not going to think of something new. Fine some secret, get an aha moment, or in any way think and suppress your way out of it.

I'm unsure what you mean here.

Quoting Wosret

It won't be finding something new, it will be breaking down and accepting something you already know.

So, you're saying I should break down and accept the thing that I already know, which is "everyone gets down sometimes"? "No one is truly happy"? And, by breaking down and accepting this, I will have dealt with my depression?

You know the truth of why therapy works. Because you think it does, and someone nice that you think is competent doesn't react badly to the things you're ashamed of, and do, and think you are and such.

Truth is, that you can make someone fall in love with you by asking each other fifty deeply personal questions, answering honestly, and responding positively. It's pretty easy to convince people that you're the greatest that ever lived, because of how little faith they have in others... and judge the quality of others based on points of ideological agreement, and personal tastes.

Quoting Noble Dust

But how does that actually support your claim that the rational/emotional divide "is factually not true"? So, therapy searches for a root cause, it tries to figure out what emotions are being held back. How do those probing actions indicate that the rational/emotional divide is false?

I posted something a while ago about Hume vs. CBT over at the old philosophy forum (now defunct). My argument was basically, that if reason or rationality is instrumental to the passions, then how is it that that very same reason or rationality cause backward causation and intendedly or unintendedly make a person less depressed as per the placebo effect or CBT (rational therapy) etc.

Here's a thread a while ago about how I view depression if people are finding it hard to understand.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/864/embracing-depression-/p1

Quoting Noble Dust

Those people, in fact, don't know what the experience is like, and can therefore add no meaningful thoughts into the discussion.

The fact is, the people who might tell us the most about depression (the people who are depressed) are observing their condition with impaired skills.

I've was depressed for a long time. I know what depression is like, in as much as I can analyze it while being a depressed person. More severely depressed people (more depressed than I) are even less able to analyze their condition. People who are not depressed at all can only speculate about what they see in terms of the behavior of the depressed.

The problem of self analysis isn't limited to the depressed. People who are deeply alienated, in a state of anomie, loneliness, and abandonment are probably not going to be very articulate about the details of their unhappy state, either.

Happy people don't know why they are happy, but they are in a better position to analyze it, because their mental facilities are presumably in excellent working condition.

Quoting Wosret

You know the truth of why therapy works. Because you think it does,

No, I don't think that.

Quoting Wosret

Truth is, that you can make someone fall in love with you by asking each other fifty deeply personal questions, answering honestly, and responding positively.

Would we really be "in love", though? Would we really love one another in a deep sense? This doesn't pertain to the OP subject, though.

Quoting Bitter Crank

The fact is, the people who might tell us the most about depression (the people who are depressed) are observing their condition with impaired skills.

The point I was trying to make to Sapentia is that experience is key. Whether dealing with depression, or mania, or any other mental state...experience is what tells about that state. Those who haven't experienced that state can only observe data. So, this is an age-old conundrum, as I'm sure you'd agree. But, who's word do we take? Sure, the mental state of the depressed is skewed, but, on the other hand, the mental state of the (not) depressed is insufficient, experientially. So, who's word do we take?

Quoting Bitter Crank

People who are deeply alienated, in a state of anomie, loneliness, and abandonment are probably not going to be very articulate about the details of their unhappy state, either.

Let me give it a shot. It's like the feeling of being outside of the world, in a glass box, observing "real people" live "real life", while I sit outside, floating in space, observing life and imagining what it would be like if I was "inside"; living real life. It's like I'm a scientist in an observatory, observing far-off life forms enact a theoretical world that I (theoretically) think I want to be a part of.

Quoting Noble Dust

I suspect those in contention with these finer points that various folks are bringing up are people who haven't actually dealt with major depression or suicidal thoughts. The cycle of miscommunication continues ad absurdum.

Per above, the depressed are not in a good position to analyze their depression. Miscommunication continues ad absurdum because (to some extent) there can not be a definitive analysis to which all will readily agree. Many millions of people claim to be depressed, and the various therapies intended to treat depression do not seem to be very effective. I've taken most of the antidepressants at one time or another, for about 25 years, and I've had a year of good talk therapy. Both helped at times, and both failed to help at times.

The observable symptoms of depression are not sure signs of depression. There are other reasons for people experiencing these reportable symptoms. Having quite a few of these symptoms likely indicates that someone is depressed, and they might be. But their own interpretation might not be all that helpful.

• Persistent sad, anxious, or “empty” mood
• Feelings of hopelessness, or pessimism
• Irritability
• Feelings of guilt, worthlessness, or helplessness
• Loss of interest or pleasure in hobbies and activities
• Decreased energy or fatigue
• Moving or talking more slowly
• Feeling restless or having trouble sitting still
• Difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions
• Difficulty sleeping, early-morning awakening, or oversleeping
• Appetite and/or weight changes
• Thoughts of death or suicide, or suicide attempts
• Aches or pains, headaches, cramps, or digestive problems without a clear physical cause and/orthat do not ease even with treatment

If a depression is caused by an irregular arrangement of neurotransmitters, then trying to figure out the cognitive cause is a waste of time. Medication may be in order, if the right one can be found. If a depression is caused by external stressors, screwed up thinking (caused by believing self-defeating theories) then providing medication may not help much. Talk therapy by a good therapist would seem to be in order. Again, the depressed person may not be able to clarify this problem for themselves or for somebody else.

Quoting Noble Dust

Let me give it a shot. It's like the feeling of being outside of the world, in a glass box, observing "real people" live "real life", while I sit outside, floating in space, observing life and imagining what it would be like if I was "inside"; living real life. It's like I'm a scientist in an observatory, observing far-off life forms enact a theoretical world that I (theoretically) think I want to be a part of.

Are you deeply alienated, in a state of anomie, loneliness, and abandonment? Or, are you approximating what you think such a miserable state would be like. There's nothing wrong with your description, per se, but...

The problem of depression used to seem clear to me, based on training and experience. As time has passed, I've come to doubt more and more about the condition of depression, especially the relatively vague and not so critical kind that so many people seem to be experiencing. It could just be the case that millions of people live in dysfunctional societies and as such have little choice but to be kind of dysfunctional.

Some people develop quirks and kinks and screwy ideas about the way life is, and these quirky, kinked, and screwed up ideas just don't work in the real world. Trying to dislodge these ideas is very difficult -- and here we're not dealing with some vague disorder as depression. So much harder is it to straighten out a depressed person whose moods, rather than their screwy thinking, is very hard to dislodge.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Per above, the depressed are not in a good position to analyze their depression.

But I addressed my thoughts on that directly above.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Miscommunication continues ad absurdum because (to some extent) there can not be a definitive analysis to which all will readily agree.

And this is key. This is the "language", if you will, of depression. A piece-meal conglomeration that is derivative of the experience of depression itself. It's an experience that doesn't avail itself to scientific descriptions because it's an experience of experience itself. This is where the limits of diagnosis come in.

Quoting Bitter Crank

The observable symptoms of depression are not sure signs of depression. There are other reasons for people experiencing these reportable symptoms.

What are statements like this even based upon? They're based upon the idea that it's a treatable cognitive malady.

So, for someone like myself who relates to all but a handful of the statements, where does that put me? in the major depressive camp, supposedly. But what does that even mean? Again, it's an an experience of experience.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Talk therapy by a good therapist would seem to be in order.

I did this for awhile, and I found it unfulfilling. The therapist just asked me leading questions that seemed to push his own agenda of what my problems were. Of course, I would hope there are better therapists out there. But the experience left me uninterested.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Are you deeply alienated, in a state of anomie, loneliness, and abandonment?

Yes.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Some people develop quirks and kinks and screwy ideas about the way life is, and these quirky, kinked, and screwed up ideas just don't work in the real world. Trying to dislodge these ideas is very difficult -- and here we're not dealing with some vague disorder as depression.

But what exactly are we dealing with, then? At this point, it seems as if the word depression has lost it's meaning, but that's because we keep applying it to a CBT-type definition. What if living in a dysfunctional world and raging against that disfunction is the definition of depression? Cognitive or otherwise?

Quoting Bitter Crank

If a depression is caused by an irregular arrangement of neurotransmitters, then trying to figure out the cognitive cause is a waste of time.

The thing is that not everyone responds to medication, or even if they do respond the efficacy isn't great enough. The same however doesn't seem to apply to talk therapy, which is more work but tends to get the job done more effectively and persistently.

Maybe you like being depressed. That would explain the thread title.

A few somewhat disconnected comments on comments...

Quoting Question

Returning to this rather important point, I think that the truism in philosophy about rationality being the handmaiden of the passions is worth bringing up. If one subscribes to this notion, then rationality is only something instrumental to the passions and can't help in treating such emotions.

Even a hardline Humean would not go so far; reason is the slave of passion, but the slave can still help the master. If one is unhappy that there is no sugar for the coffee, reason can usefully direct one to the grocer rather than the iron-monger for the remedy. The curiosity of depression is that it is in some way an anti-passion; it does not seem to motivate very well.

Quoting TimeLine

Perhaps ask yourself this; do you enjoy depression?

There is something important here, but to put it this way does not make it easy to get at. Perhaps one could put it more open-endedly, that there may be a function, that depression 'works' in some way as a response to the world. Another question that I like better is, "what are you depressing?" It might be sometimes, perhaps not always, that depression is a way of coping with other feelings that cannot be resolved and cannot be tolerated either - shame, guilt, rage, or some such. Thus one does not exactly enjoy depression, but it could be better than the feelings one would have if one was not depressed.

Quoting Noble Dust

Actually, that's a hallmark of this problem; there are those who have never experienced depression. Those people, in fact, don't know what the experience is like, and can therefore add no meaningful thoughts into the discussion.

This is a very radical position; one does not normally require that a doctor suffers from every complaint he treats, let alone a philosophical enquirer. But there is certainly some validity, to the extent at least that those who pontificate without either experience or listening will probably miss the mark.

Quoting Noble Dust

Let me give it a shot. It's like the feeling of being outside of the world, in a glass box, observing "real people" live "real life", while I sit outside, floating in space, observing life and imagining what it would be like if I was "inside"; living real life. It's like I'm a scientist in an observatory, observing far-off life forms enact a theoretical world that I (theoretically) think I want to be a part of.

This is a very clear characterisation that immediately suggests to me a way of understanding depression in terms of an active response to an intolerable and inescapable situation. One creates a dissociated identity as a refuge to preserve oneself from an overwhelming world. 'I' take refuge in the safety of an inner world that cannot be touched by the outer world, only to discover that I have become isolated and cannot in turn touch the world. And from there, one can see at once that there is no help for this dissociated self, either from itself or from the other in the outer world, and the only solution is for it to die.

Fortunately, this psychological death can be accomplished without physical death; indeed physical death does not do it at all. The inner self cannot by any means reach the outer world, but the inner self can end, and then one finds one is already in and part of the outer world. This is a terrifying prospect, to become, as one once was, completely vulnerable to the world, and this terror is what makes it seem impossible.

Reply to Noble Dust Reply to Question Reply to unenlightened
Depression is nothing more than lack of self-esteem and identity. The depressed doesn't believe in themselves, they don't believe they have a destiny, they have no faith - nor do they work at creating it.


This is Jacques Fresco. One of my personal heros. He just died about 10 days ago. At 101 years old. How did he make it to that age? Because he worked. And worked. And used his mind and body, and didn't let them go to waste.

What causes depression? Expectations that you deserve X or Y to be given to you. Leftism and communism - which disempowers people and makes them rely on the State, or some outside agency for worldly salvation. Also overpowering people/parents who give the child the idea that they can't make it on their own. Also some of society's standards of conduct which make people feel guilty if they don't meet them. Buddhism is right on this point - you have to work out your own salvation (at least with regards to worldly, non-spiritual salvation).

God gave you intelligence. Use it. It's not there to fust in you unused. So make use of it. Push yourself.

Go for a run. Do that right now. Stop complaining and other shit. And when you feel you're wheezing, short of breath, wanna give up, can't handle this anymore, etc. etc. ignore the feeling and push yourself onwards. One more step. And another. And another. Depression is overcome when you stop letting it control your behaviour.

Read this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho-Cybernetics

Act on it.

And remember the story of Job. Who the hell are you to complain and ask why you're suffering, etc.? God rules the Universe as he pleases, we are nothing but straw dogs. That's where philosophy must end. God told Job no point arguing with me. Who are you to question my decisions? I am the Lord your God, and if I decide to let you suffer, then you will suffer. Your duty is to play your role, and do your best with what you're given. That's it.

Book of Job 38-41:
1 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:
2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?
12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.
16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.
19 “What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?
20 Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!
22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?
24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm,
26 to water a land where no one lives,
an uninhabited desert,
27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland
and make it sprout with grass?
28 Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
30 when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?
31 “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades?
Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons
or lead out the Bear with its cubs?
33 Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth?
34 “Can you raise your voice to the clouds
and cover yourself with a flood of water?
35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
36 Who gives the ibis wisdom
or gives the rooster understanding?
37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
38 when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?
39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions
40 when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
41 Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?
39 “Do you know when the mountain goats give birth?
Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?
2 Do you count the months till they bear?
Do you know the time they give birth?
3 They crouch down and bring forth their young;
their labor pains are ended.
4 Their young thrive and grow strong in the wilds;
they leave and do not return.
5 “Who let the wild donkey go free?
Who untied its ropes?
6 I gave it the wasteland as its home,
the salt flats as its habitat.
7 It laughs at the commotion in the town;
it does not hear a driver’s shout.
8 It ranges the hills for its pasture
and searches for any green thing.
9 “Will the wild ox consent to serve you?
Will it stay by your manger at night?
10 Can you hold it to the furrow with a harness?
Will it till the valleys behind you?
11 Will you rely on it for its great strength?
Will you leave your heavy work to it?
12 Can you trust it to haul in your grain
and bring it to your threshing floor?
13 “The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully,
though they cannot compare
with the wings and feathers of the stork.
14 She lays her eggs on the ground
and lets them warm in the sand,
15 unmindful that a foot may crush them,
that some wild animal may trample them.
16 She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers;
she cares not that her labor was in vain,
17 for God did not endow her with wisdom
or give her a share of good sense.
18 Yet when she spreads her feathers to run,
she laughs at horse and rider.
19 “Do you give the horse its strength
or clothe its neck with a flowing mane?
20 Do you make it leap like a locust,
striking terror with its proud snorting?
21 It paws fiercely, rejoicing in its strength,
and charges into the fray.
22 It laughs at fear, afraid of nothing;
it does not shy away from the sword.
23 The quiver rattles against its side,
along with the flashing spear and lance.
24 In frenzied excitement it eats up the ground;
it cannot stand still when the trumpet sounds.
25 At the blast of the trumpet it snorts, ‘Aha!’
It catches the scent of battle from afar,
the shout of commanders and the battle cry.
26 “Does the hawk take flight by your wisdom
and spread its wings toward the south?
27 Does the eagle soar at your command
and build its nest on high?
28 It dwells on a cliff and stays there at night;
a rocky crag is its stronghold.
29 From there it looks for food;
its eyes detect it from afar.
30 Its young ones feast on blood,
and where the slain are, there it is.”
40 The Lord said to Job:

2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!”
3 Then Job answered the Lord:

4 “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer—
twice, but I will say no more.”
6 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm:

7 “Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
8 “Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
9 Do you have an arm like God’s,
and can your voice thunder like his?
10 Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor,
and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.
11 Unleash the fury of your wrath,
look at all who are proud and bring them low,
12 look at all who are proud and humble them,
crush the wicked where they stand.
13 Bury them all in the dust together;
shroud their faces in the grave.
14 Then I myself will admit to you
that your own right hand can save you.
15 “Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
17 Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20 The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
23 A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
24 Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?
41 “Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook
or tie down its tongue with a rope?
2 Can you put a cord through its nose
or pierce its jaw with a hook?
3 Will it keep begging you for mercy?
Will it speak to you with gentle words?
4 Will it make an agreement with you
for you to take it as your slave for life?
5 Can you make a pet of it like a bird
or put it on a leash for the young women in your house?
6 Will traders barter for it?
Will they divide it up among the merchants?
7 Can you fill its hide with harpoons
or its head with fishing spears?
8 If you lay a hand on it,
you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
9 Any hope of subduing it is false;
the mere sight of it is overpowering.
10 No one is fierce enough to rouse it.
Who then is able to stand against me?
11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
Everything under heaven belongs to me.
12 “I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs,
its strength and its graceful form.
13 Who can strip off its outer coat?
Who can penetrate its double coat of armor?
14 Who dares open the doors of its mouth,
ringed about with fearsome teeth?
15 Its back has rows of shields
tightly sealed together;
16 each is so close to the next
that no air can pass between.
17 They are joined fast to one another;
they cling together and cannot be parted.
18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;
its eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Flames stream from its mouth;
sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from its nostrils
as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,
and flames dart from its mouth.
22 Strength resides in its neck;
dismay goes before it.
23 The folds of its flesh are tightly joined;
they are firm and immovable.
24 Its chest is hard as rock,
hard as a lower millstone.
25 When it rises up, the mighty are terrified;
they retreat before its thrashing.
26 The sword that reaches it has no effect,
nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.
27 Iron it treats like straw
and bronze like rotten wood.
28 Arrows do not make it flee;
slingstones are like chaff to it.
29 A club seems to it but a piece of straw;
it laughs at the rattling of the lance.
30 Its undersides are jagged potsherds,
leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.
31 It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron
and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 It leaves a glistening wake behind it;
one would think the deep had white hair.
33 Nothing on earth is its equal—
a creature without fear.
34 It looks down on all that are haughty;
it is king over all that are proud.”

Quoting 0 thru 9

Calling it a "mood" seems like it is being shrugged off or taken too lightly.

The talk about 'mood' I was quoting from elsewhere, in work by Matthew Ratcliffe, doesn't take things lightly. It's about 'deep mood' which he distinguishes from everyday talk about mood..

Such a 'deep mood' is our very way of being in the world. In this sense I (think I) completely agree with the outlook of Noble Dust. (Philosophically my phrasing comes from Heidegger, but he thought our deep mood was 'angst', an odd formulation) To the clinician a report of 'depression' may be a 'malady', a 'mood disorder', and perhaps they are bound to look at it that way, given that people come to them saying, This is how I am, what can you do for me? - But to the person concerned it may be the way the world is.

Then, for me, it's up to the person concerned whether they address how they're feeling as a 'malady' -because they wish they could feel better about things - or as a 'way the world is'. (The melancholy exception would be if they seem to stop being able to function as a human being, or express suicidal thoughts that another person.)

The value of a cbt-type approach, if the person decides to try out the 'malady' angle, is that cbt is based on a modern-day version of Stoicism which, as I understand it, tries to enable you to cordon off for yourself zones in which you can still enjoy or at least feel rewarded by life, instead of being consumed by the darkness of your feelings about life and the world. I confess I've tried it without success, and the evidence is only of short-term benefit, but it definitely benefits some people.

Reply to AgustinoLet's leave the politics for another thread, eh? But poetics is good, if you can avoid the counterproductive condemnation.

There now, they're all gone,
almost as if they never had been
I turn my eyes backwards and I gaze into my own gaze
I turn my eyes inwards and I gaze into my own face

I built my prison stone by stone
how many useless knots I tied
I dug the pitfalls in my path
how many useless tears I cried
here to build in worlds of beauty
no-one made a joy a duty
no-one, no-one but me

I saw the birds that flew so free
I envied them their grace divine
I saw the dancer's airy steps
theirs was a different world than mine
here to build in worlds of glory
no-one made my sad sad story
no-one, no-one but me

when useless walls come tumbling down
sparrows will sing on the fallen stones
Adam will pull the knife from his brow
Eve will lick the salt from his wounds
free to make my own tomorrow
free to free my heart from sorrow
free to hear and smell and see
free to be me, free to be free

Cutting the Strings

Reply to Moliere Reply to Purple Pond
An illness is a medical condition, depression is a mental disorder, mental disorders are not medical conditions. Clear enough? Maybe I should be straightforward: depression is neither an illness, a sickness nor a disease.

Reply to Agustino Evangelism is against the site guidelines, so tread carefully.

Quoting Noblosh

Evangelism is against the site guidelines, so tread carefully.

I did not evangelise at all, I didn't ask anyone to convert to Christianity. In fact, the video I posted is of a hard-core atheist (Jacques Fresco) whom I admire. The book I posted also has nothing to do with Christianity. So please. Get your facts straight. Mr. No Blushin'.

Reply to Agustino Political persuasion is considered evangelism by the site guidelines. But I'm really not the one to judge what would constitute an offense on this site, I've just given you an advice.

Quoting Noblosh

Political persuasion is considered evangelism by the site guidelines. But I'm really not the one to judge what would constitute an offense on this site, I've just given you an advice.

And? Where have I evangelised? I just made the point that a certain political persuasion is disempowering - I made no reference to whether it's true, worth holding, the right or wrong one etc. There are beliefs which are disempowering, and that's just a fact. If you believe that because of so and so factor of your environment (say discrimination, racism, etc.) you are depressed or in a bad situation, then that is disempowering. It's because of that situation that you are depressed, it's not within your control - so you don't do anything except cry about your disadvantages. But, if your belief, on the other hand, is that how I feel, and how I react depends on myself - I am in control - and not whatever external circumstance, then that is empowering - it allows you to free yourself.

If you need proof of communism being disempowering, just look at the Eastern European countries that have been ravaged by it - you'll see more negative and pessimistic thinking there than anywhere else.

And by the way, that small point about communism was 0.01% of my post. That was a secondary point more than anything else. And just some advice from me: I don't think you're in any position to judge or give me advice about forum rules, etc. You barely have 30 posts, you're a new member, take your time and understand how things go around here first. If any of the moderators think there's a problem with my post, I'm sure they could contact me by PM about it, and it will be settled.

Reply to Agustino I get it, you blame depression solely on external locus of control. But I argue that internal locus of control is in no way better, it gives you the false impression that you're in control, fully responsible for both your successes and your failures when people in fact depend on each other and are affected by external circumstances for better or worst. We're not free just because we think we are, we're in a constant constraint by factors beyond our direct control.

Quoting Agustino

And just some advice from me: I don't think you're in any position to judge or give me advice about forum rules, etc. You barely have 30 posts, you're a new member, take your time and understand how things go around here first.

Spare me your pooh-pooh. You don't welcome advices from me, point taken.

Quoting Noblosh

it gives you the false impression that you're in control, fully responsible for both your successes and your failures when people in fact depend on each other and are affected by external circumstances for better or worst. We're not free just because we think we are, we're in a constant constraint by factors beyond our direct control.

False impression or not isn't even what's under the discussion. What's under discussion is solely what brings the best performance in you? What maximises your chances of escaping your current circumstances for some better ones? What maximises your chances of beating the odds?

Clearly being pessimistic, negative, and acutely aware of what's holding you back won't do that. Say I want to create a new church community. If I start thinking about all the things holding me back - no experience, not enough money, etc. - I will never do it. I'm guaranteed in fact to never do it. But if I start thinking I can do it, and start asking useful questions instead of complaining, such as "what steps can I take now to do it? Who do I need to contact and who could help me? etc." I actually stand a chance - regardless of how small - of doing it. Even if my conviction was based on no evidence at all.

Take Ghandi. Do you think Ghandi would ever have freed India had he started thinking "ahh the British Empire is too strong, there is no chance. Let's just give up, we're a smaller and weaker nation, we don't have any weapons, there's nothing we can do"? Clearly not. He would have ended up some sorry and depressed man. What helped him achieve the impossible was nothing but his sheer conviction, and strength of will in believing that it was possible, and then seeking to do anything in his power to make that possibility true. He had no evidence as such for believing it... but it's the belief that made the evidence possible, and not the other way around.

Quoting Noblosh

An illness is a medical condition, depression is a mental disorder, mental disorders are not medical conditions. Clear enough? Maybe I should be straightforward: depression is neither an illness, a sickness nor a disease.

It's not more clear to me because I already understood you were drawing a distinction between medical condition and mental disorder. What I do not understand is what said distinction consists of. How would I be able to determine one from the other? What makes them different?

I'll try to demonstrate how I see these as the same:

The way I see it -- "depression", as a term we use to describe someone's mental disorder, comes straight out of the medical model. There is an underlying problem which has symptoms for determining that such and such is the problem and also connecting said symptoms to a cure -- the underlying problem, the malady of health, explains both the symptoms and the cure, or is meant to lead to a successful cure if one is not yet known. If said cure attached to the malady does not cure it, then we're wrong about our description of the underlying malady, even if we know the symptoms.

Quoting Noblosh

?Agustino Evangelism is against the site guidelines, so tread carefully.

I disagree with a lot of what Agustino has to say, but I wouldn't accuse him of evangelizing politically or religiously -- certainly no more than a lot of us evangelize from our personal pulpit point of view.

Quoting Agustino

It's because of that situation that you are depressed, it's not within your control - so you don't do anything except cry about your disadvantages. But, if your belief, on the other hand, is that how I feel, and how I react depends on myself - I am in control - and not whatever external circumstance, then that is empowering - it allows you to free yourself.

IF someone believes that they are in control and not at the mercy of external circumstances, then they probably won't be depressed in the first place. If they don't believe they are in control and are at the mercy of external events, telling them to snap out of it probably will not work.

People are sometimes taught passivity and inability, but fairly often we teach ourselves further lessons of inability. We structure our thinking about our 'situation' as a no-win negative situation, and then we get stuck. Maybe we don't like our job and we don't believe there are good and better jobs out there. We don't do well at the job, then people at work get angry at us, but we don't care, and down the spiral we go. We could change our ideas about work, jobs, and our place in them -- without giving up everything else we believe.

Maybe she wishes that her children would pay more attention to her at Christmas, Thanksgiving, her birthday, or Mothers Day. They habitually don't, but every year she expects that they will, and is freshly crushed each year when they don't -- once again -- perform as desired. She gets angry each time, and reaffirms her suspicion that her children don't care about her, and down the spiral she goes. She could revise her expectations and recognize that her children probably won't fulfill her expectations.

Reply to Agustino If we don't recognize the constraints we're under, positive thinking can lead us so far. We can better our condition with that type of thinking, sure, but that's not what depressed people crave for, they crave for purpose, not status and you fail to understand that and so your commentary is off the point.

Reply to Bitter Crank That was no accusation, I realize I don't have any right to accuse anyone on this site what I don't realize is why Reply to Agustino can't take it as a simple tip.

Quoting mcdoodle

The talk about 'mood' I was quoting from elsewhere, in work by Matthew Ratcliffe, doesn't take things lightly. It's about 'deep mood' which he distinguishes from everyday talk about mood..

Such a 'deep mood' is our very way of being in the world. In this sense I (think I) completely agree with the outlook of Noble Dust. (Philosophically my phrasing comes from Heidegger, but he thought our deep mood was 'angst', an odd formulation) To the clinician a report of 'depression' may be a 'malady', a 'mood disorder', and perhaps they are bound to look at it that way, given that people come to them saying, This is how I am, what can you do for me? - But to the person concerned it may be the way the world is.

Then, for me, it's up to the person concerned whether they address how they're feeling as a 'malady' -because they wish they could feel better about things - or as a 'way the world is'. (The melancholy exception would be if they seem to stop being able to function as a human being, or express suicidal thoughts that another person.)

The value of a cbt-type approach, if the person decides to try out the 'malady' angle, is that cbt is based on a modern-day version of Stoicism which, as I understand it, tries to enable you to cordon off for yourself zones in which you can still enjoy or at least feel rewarded by life, instead of being consumed by the darkness of your feelings about life and the world. I confess I've tried it without success, and the evidence is only of short-term benefit, but it definitely benefits some people.

Thanks for the reply. (Y) I completely agree with the context in which you used the word "mood". That is the way to give it the gravitas it deserves. Well done! Just wanted to distinguish that from the dismissive attitude of some well-meaning bystander: "oh, you are just in a passing blue mood. No big deal, just push harder. Onward soldier!" Thank you for the eloquent distinction between the two.

Quoting Question

I can't help but notice almost everyone aligning in the same group, which believes that depression is a mood.

There are two senses of the term:

One refers to what's known as "major depression" or "clinical depression" in the medical field.

The other refers to being "bummed out" or "sad" about something more in the sense of a "mood" that will pass as circumstances change or as time passes--for example, you're depressed because you didn't get some job, or you're struggling with bills, or whatever.

Both are brain states. Major/Clinical depression is a chronic/persistent brain state, however, and it's not precipitated by circumstances--there's not some clearly identifiable personal tragedy or disappointment that is catalyzing it, where if we could just change those circumstances or just let more time pass, the brain state will cease. Major/clinical depression is a persistent brain state that people attempt to find rationalizations for.

In other words, we could say that circumstances cause the mood form of depression, and it's alleviated when circumstances are different. But with major/clinical depression, the brain state is the cause, and one might seek things to pin the brain state on, but those things aren't the cause. Particular brain structures and tendencies towards certain brain functioning are the cause.

I'd assume in a thread like this that we're talking about major/clinical depression and not just the passing or "mood" sense of the term.

Pretty much everyone experiences the mood sense every once in awhile. It's not a big deal for most people, because it doesn't last long. By its nature, it's not chronic or persistent.

Re major/clinical depression, not everyone experiences that, but plenty of people do. That's why I asked you the clarifying question that I did: "For those who have depression you mean, or for everyone? Because not everyone has depression."

Quoting Question

The thing is that not everyone responds to medication, or even if they do respond the efficacy isn't great enough. The same however doesn't seem to apply to talk therapy, which is more work but tends to get the job done more effectively and persistently.

Yes, I think antidepressants have relatively low efficacy for middling depression, compared to some other medications. Tranquilizers are quite effective in quelling acute anxiety; a little Xanax or Ativan can calm one down pretty quickly and if one isn't prone to addiction (most people are not) they're effective. The same can't be said for antidepressants. They can have substantial efficacy, but people differ greatly in their response, so finding the right one (or combination) can be difficult.

"Middling depression" isn't an acute or severe condition and may not have a biological cause in a given case. So whatever people take may not perform dramatically, like tranquilizers. Plus, antidepressants can have side effects which people don't like -- such as libido suppression.

For one kind of depression I use a motor for an analogy. It seems to me that there is a kind of emotional emergency-clutch in place for when what normally motivates us to act actually becomes too painful to function. We can disconnect from our emotions and do disconnect from our emotions in particular circumstances because our emotions can be overwhelming at a particular moment. Depression, in this case, is a malfunction of said emergency-clutch -- it's unable to re-engage the engine (our emotions) and is stuck in the disengaged position.

I'm uncertain when taking the analogy literally though. For one, I don't think that we're quite as mechanical as a literal interpretation of an engine-to-wheels metaphor suggests. It's just an approximation for attempting to understand the mechanism (or the lack of mechanism) and where it seems to be located in relation to the rest of the mind -- I'd say it's between the emotions and the body, and has something to do with transitioning to new environments or dealing with overwhelming environments. (edit: and the malady could be such that no such environment is needed to trigger such responses, or that no such environment is still around but the workings in-between are still acting as if there is)

Quoting Noblosh

what I don't realize is why ?Agustino can't take it as a simple tip.

I don't know -- it just rubbed his fur the wrong way, I suppose. Certain things bug me disproportionately, too.

Quoting Noble Dust

So, do we know what it is? We have to wait until we know what it is to call it what it is? And Question is calling it "this" or "that", which is, what? What it is? Or not? What?

I wasn't planning on getting myself too involved in the semantics, as I don't think that it's as important as others seem to. We know what we're talking about, at least those of us who've been depressed before. I'll leave it up to the professionals, so like, however the DSM-IV defines it or something.

Quoting Noble Dust

I may be mistaken, but I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise. Actually, that's a hallmark of this problem; there are those who have never experienced depression. Those people, in fact, don't know what the experience is like, and can therefore add no meaningful thoughts into the discussion.

Yes, you are mistaken. I was responding to Question's comments in the opening post. See for yourself.

Reply to Noble Dust
Thank you very much. Your complement is appreciated, and your appreciation is complemented! Truly glad you found it helpful. (Y)
Trying to come up with a list of things that helped me either pull out of the depression or stay out of it:

"Good" nutrition (whatever that may be for a particular individual at a given time): Omega-3 fats (instead of trans-fats, which happily are being used less), phyto-chemicals, the essential vitamins and minerals, not too many carbohydrates especially HF corn syrup, fresh fruits/veggies, organic foods whenever possible.

Herbs: straddles the border between food and medicine. This would take some research and experimentation to find what may help you. Like medicines, herbs have an optimal dosage and side effects. But there are many GRAS (generally recognized as safe) herbs that may have a positive effect. Lavender, kava kava, ginseng, valerian, tumeric, rosemary, pau d'arco, and garlic are just a few that i find helpful.

A solid sleep schedule: this one like nutrition is easier said than done, but it has a powerful effect on the mind and body. That effect can either be positive or negative, depending. As mentioned above, melatonin supplements help me though that may not be true for all. Melatonin helped make working at night possible because it helped me sleep during the day. But being mindful of the serotonin/melatonin yin/yang circadian rhythm is crucial. Getting enough sleep for your needs at a given time. Maybe it is 6 hours one day and 9 the next. And for serotonin boosting, getting exposure to bright light or sun upon waking. Exercise boosts serotonin. Coffee helps too, imho.

Vocalizing (for lack of a better word!): Letting the feelings out through sound, basically. Talking it out. Even talking to yourself helps and can be very cathartic, bringing some insight and relief. Probably better to do that where no one else can hear, unless they are understanding of the situation. Engaging in "primal scream" therapy while driving seems a little risky and might lead to road rage. But letting out feelings in the relative privacy of your car is not uncommon. Moaning and groaning in private can be expressive and therapeutic. A sustained moan can sound like Ommmm. Perhaps they are similar, but just different vibrations. I think the voice is our primal "instrument", but other musical devices can express our deepest feelings.

Blessing: bless everybody and everything, continuously under all circumstances. Better yet- bow to all.
This starts with and includes yourself! This doesn't mean one likes, approves of, understands, agrees with, or enjoys everything, of course. That is not possible. Blessing establishes one's kinship with all people, all beings, even all things and conditions. And it opens the heart chakra, allowing the primal energy to flow upward to our mind and spirit. Even a partially closed heart is a gridlock and a bottleneck of static energy.

Other helpful things: yoga (of which hatha yoga is but the tip of the iceberg); the Tao Te Ching, Gospels, or other books of wisdom; binaural sound therapy (two slightly different frequencies listened to in each ear through headphones); drawing, doodling and painting; using a low-voltage zapper (as developed by Hulda Clark and others); exercise, detoxing and sweating; meditation and deep breathing. Sure that there are many others.

Please everyone, let us know what helps you! Thanks very much for reading. (L)

Quoting Bitter Crank

If they don't believe they are in control and are at the mercy of external events, telling them to snap out of it probably will not work.

Okay, so then you agree the work is in changing their beliefs - namely that their beliefs are at fault for their condition. Would I be right in saying that?

Quoting Bitter Crank

People are sometimes taught passivity and inability, but fairly often we teach ourselves further lessons of inability. We structure our thinking about our 'situation' as a no-win negative situation, and then we get stuck. Maybe we don't like our job and we don't believe there are good and better jobs out there. We don't do well at the job, then people at work get angry at us, but we don't care, and down the spiral we go. We could change our ideas about work, jobs, and our place in them -- without giving up everything else we believe.

Exactly, so it's our beliefs that influence the outcomes to these situations we're discussing.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Maybe she wishes that her children would pay more attention to her at Christmas, Thanksgiving, her birthday, or Mothers Day. They habitually don't, but every year she expects that they will, and is freshly crushed each year when they don't -- once again -- perform as desired. She gets angry each time, and reaffirms her suspicion that her children don't care about her, and down the spiral she goes. She could revise her expectations and recognize that her children probably won't fulfill her expectations.

Yes, I agree with this as well. This is an important part, but, I believe it is secondary to having affirming and positive beliefs. Beliefs are the sword, having no expectations is the shield. What do I mean?

Beliefs push you to try to do whatsoever you wish to do - a feeling of certainty is probably the best way to get yourself to undertake an action (or a series of actions). But in case you fail, you'll become depressed if you don't balance this with having no expectations. Having no expectations is a meta-cognitive renunciation that occurs when you realise that God (or the world if you're an atheist) doesn't owe you anything to begin with.

There was a time when I had very strong beliefs, combined with very strong expectations, and I can say for certain that that leads to a lot of negativity, depression, anxiety, etc.

Quoting Noblosh

If we don't recognize the constraints we're under, positive thinking can lead us so far. We can better our condition with that type of thinking, sure, but that's not what depressed people crave for, they crave for purpose, not status and you fail to understand that and so your commentary is off the point.

Yes, but how can you not recognise the constraints you're under? Most people are very good at this part - too good. They always find the reasons why something can't be done.

And I do understand (some) of the depressed crave for purpose and meaning. But that purpose and meaning emerges once they come to terms with themselves. Once they understand their own self in a positive and affirming way. Once they have can-do beliefs - once they start valuing themselves, instead of putting themselves down. It all comes back to self-esteem.

I just came back from the gym / martial arts routine and let me tell you - the human body is such a phenomenal creation of God - you can always push it beyond its limits, it always obeys, even when it can't go on anymore. How much more capable our bodies are than we give them credit. Some people are depressed because they're fat, they're feeling fatigued, etc. all day long. But God didn't make them like that. God gave them absolutely all the tools they need. It's not their body that is at fault, but the spirit. The poor body has no option but to obey the spirit - and a sluggish, lazy spirit leads to a fat and unhealthy body.

Yes it is true that some, because of health reasons, simply can't use their bodies in the same ways as others. Each has a duty only to work with the resources they are given, and no more. The rest of us owe it to help those people, but even these people - their body can often do a lot more than they think it can.

So I was just reflecting. How enjoyable to feel the vigor and strength running through your body, to feel that you can rely on it, that it can take you wherever you ask it. Spinoza was right - we enjoy the power and strength of our body, and whatsoever increases it, brings us joy.

But yes - it wasn't for no reason that I told the depressed people in this thread to go for a run. They need to do that to snap out of the cycle where their self-esteem is going to the bottom. They need to push themselves, and see that they can achieve and do things that they thought were impossible. They need to go through those moments, where they can barely take another step, and yet push themselves, and see that it is possible to go another step, and another. That's a win for them afterwards. Add more and more wins each and every day, and soon their self-esteem will be back up!

Quoting unenlightened

This is a very clear characterisation that immediately suggests to me a way of understanding depression in terms of an active response to an intolerable and inescapable situation. One creates a dissociated identity as a refuge to preserve oneself from an overwhelming world. 'I' take refuge in the safety of an inner world that cannot be touched by the outer world, only to discover that I have become isolated and cannot in turn touch the world. And from there, one can see at once that there is no help for this dissociated self, either from itself or from the other in the outer world, and the only solution is for it to die.

Fortunately, this psychological death can be accomplished without physical death; indeed physical death does not do it at all. The inner self cannot by any means reach the outer world, but the inner self can end, and then one finds one is already in and part of the outer world. This is a terrifying prospect, to become, as one once was, completely vulnerable to the world, and this terror is what makes it seem impossible.

Yes, amen, and thank you. Same for the poem you posted afterwards. (Y)

Quoting Agustino

This is Jacques Fresco. One of my personal heros. He just died about 10 days ago. At 101 years old. How did he make it to that age? Because he worked. And worked. And used his mind and body, and didn't let them go to waste.

Hadn't heard that Jacques had passed. Sad to hear that. Though what more could one ask from him after 101 years? Rest in Peace/Vacation in Paradise!

Quoting unenlightened

Even a hardline Humean would not go so far; reason is the slave of passion, but the slave can still help the master. If one is unhappy that there is no sugar for the coffee, reason can usefully direct one to the grocer rather than the iron-monger for the remedy. The curiosity of depression is that it is in some way an anti-passion; it does not seem to motivate very well.

I would argue that depression is so hard to treat because we are in some sense the slave to our passions. How else would you explain the difficulty in treating depression?

Quoting Agustino

How enjoyable to feel the vigor and strength running through your body, to feel that you can rely on it, that it can take you wherever you ask it.

I used to bike, swim, and jog, do yoga and calisthenics. I was svelte and fit. Then injuries and age snowed white hair on me. When you start getting old, then one's body sometimes says "No!" when you ask it to take you somewhere. But even us old folks need to keep moving as much as we can.

Quoting Agustino

Once they understand their own self in a positive and affirming way.

Believing is seeing. If one believes that there is a positive self inside, then they can begin to actually see it and do something good.

Of course, sometimes seeing comes first. There are objectively bad situations (like bad work places, like bad relationships, like bad schools, like bad neighborhoods ) that one can and ought to leave, or not accept in the first place.

Quoting 0 thru 9

Hadn't heard that Jacques had passed. Sad to hear that. Though what more could one ask from him after 101 years? Rest in Peace/Vacation in Paradise!

Exactly.

Reply to Bitter Crank
Yes, agreed.

Reply to Question My personal opinion:

The difficulty with depression is the same difficulty as that which is found with losing weight, making money, finding the right woman, etc.

The principles that are required to solve each are simple. But most people don't put in the effort (both intellectual and physical) required to get through with them OR they're not willing to go through the physical and emotional pain necessary to solve them - why don't they? There can be multiple reasons, but all return to a lack of self-esteem and a fear of pain/suffering.

To develop self-esteem you must start by loving yourself, accepting yourself for who you are, and treating your body and mind with compassion, kindness and care. You have to develop an affirming vision of yourself, and find problems in the world that you can use your talents to solve (that gives you purpose).

To stop being afraid of pain/suffering it helps to have strong moral values that you don't deviate from, to be religious (just because the religious can view it as a duty to accept whatever God allots them), to have no expectations, and to stop thinking you deserve something different than what you have. In other words, stop being self-focused, and be world or other-focused.

Why do you think people read these words and don't act on them?

Quoting Agustino

The principles that are required to solve each are simple. But most people don't put in the effort (both intellectual and physical) required to get through with them OR they're not willing to go through the physical and emotional pain necessary to solve them - why don't they? There can be multiple reasons, but all return to a lack of self-esteem and a fear of pain/suffering.

That's silly. Many people struggle with depression and can't come out of that state due to other reasons than 'lack of effort' or 'lack of willpower'.

I tend to think depression as a subconscious defense mechanism against the world. It seems to me that depression entails a certain belief system about the world that one resides in. For example:

I am powerless.
I feel lousy.
I can't change the way I am.
Desires make me unhappy because I can't realize them.

These are all belief's about oneself and the world. Simply saying that none of them are true is just rubbish because one (a depressed individual) already supposes them valid on face value.

Quoting Question

I would argue that depression is so hard to treat because we are in some sense the slave to our passions. How else would you explain the difficulty in treating depression?

It's interesting that you put it like that. The 'we' that is a slave to passions is 'reason'. So it looks as though you are identifying as 'the reasoner' and against 'the passionate'. This is quite close to the dissociation I mentioned in reply to @0 thru 9. The reasoner is the disembodied inner thought, and the passionate is the connected body. The 'feeling' of depression, then, is almost a pseudo-feeling -or a feeling of numbness due to disconnection from passion.

The difficulty of treatment, I would suggest, is that this dissociation from feeling was in the first place a remedy for an intolerable situation. To recover would be to reconnect with those passions that were intolerable in the first place.

According to Hume's understanding, the passions - giving a damn - are what motivates one to do something, anything. Reason will work out the seventh digit of pi iff passion wants to know. These are not separate beings, reason and passion, but aspects of one being. I am a passionate and reasonable being, but passion is the engine, reason merely the gearbox.

I wonder if anyone will understand me if i say thatidentification is dissociation. Identifying as the gearbox, the reasoner, the inner world, is dissociating from passion, from pain, from giving a damn. The safety of numbness is the prison of depression. If this is correct, there is nothing substantial that needs to be or can be done; all that is required is a change of mind, a change of identification, and that can happen in the blink of an eye.

Quoting Question

These are all belief's about oneself and the world. Simply saying that none of them are true is just rubbish because one (a depressed individual) already supposes them valid on face value.

Okay I understand you. So can a depressed person provide reasons for considering those beliefs valid at face value? For example:

• Why is it that you feel powerless?
• Why is it that you feel lousy?
• Why is it that you think you can't change?
• Why is it that you think you can't fulfil desires?
• Why do you even need to fulfil all desires?

Is a depressed person willing to, scientifically, suspend judgement and question those beliefs through actions?

• Powerless: go run for whatever you think is a long time for you. Push yourself to do something that makes you feel uncomfortable and you feel you can't do. Feel all the uncomfortable feelings, the feeling of giving up, etc. but ignore them.
• Lousy: Eat right. Exercise. Do something you enjoy - a small thing, something easy to do. Help someone, and then ask them how they felt. Pause and ask yourself how you're feeling.
• Think you can't change: Find a way to change in something small. Can you exercise for 20 mins every day and stick to it? If you can, then there you go, you show your mind that it's possible.
• Can't fulfil desires: Think of a regular desire you have - the desire to eat ice-cream for example. Fulfil it, and pay attention, in the moment, to the joy you get out of fulfilling it.

Remember that mountains are climbed step by step - you don't hop from the bottom to the very top in one go. You can't question your beliefs purely in an intellectual way - you have to make your body FEEL that your beliefs are wrong. That level of feeling is different than merely considering matters abstractly in your head. That's why I've emphasised doing something - taking action!

Quoting Wayfarer

Another was something my father used to often quote from Thoreau, that 'most people live lives of quiet desperation' (which I'm sure he often felt.)

It is actually telling that you mentioned Thoreau. Well over a decade ago now when I was young, I picked up Thoreau in an effort to embrace the solitude that I was experiencing. I abandoned the material in a bid to strengthen the subjective hollowness that I had felt and I thought that after years of practice I had mastered this 'separation' and conquered the fear of aloneness. Indeed, I was quite comfortable being in completely quite environments where I was alone. That was until several years ago when I met a young man who - rather paradoxically - knew of Thoreau (which utterly surprised me at the time considering his persona as a 'bogan') and mentioned the very same quote, but his universe was split between this unknown desire for more and the identity he formed as part of his reality.

As such, his pathology also became divided and it was almost impossible to get him to understand that the reality he believed in so wholeheartedly that causally made him doubt himself was actually the illusion and thus as his confidence was so small because of this false innate perception of the world around him where social networking and the image he portrayed were all profoundly important to him, there was a part of him consistently screaming out as though the real 'him' was trying to articulate the anxiety he felt for having no voice. But this 'screaming out' was all wrong because of the power of the false representations he had of reality, whereby he was verbally abusive and consistently aggressive, he played games and lied, stepped on people who were weaker than him as he physically 'showed' a prowess by taking drugs for muscle growth, even though he would completely doubt himself enough to follow the opinions and suggestion made by others, just like a little child.

Most of the time when I meet such people, I immediately turn the other way because of the dangers -particularly the aggression - but his mention of Thoreau and a few other things made me, for some strange reason, believe that he had a chance of strengthening within and embracing his independence and autonomy. I mistakenly wanted to be his friend and show him some sisterly love. I have no idea why, but his consistent failures, just watching him play games with me (and himself) thinking I was too stupid to figure him out, it genuinely made me feel sad and hopeless not just for him but for humanity too. There was nothing I could do to enable him to feel empathy and that was when I learnt it is the key to autonomy.

This sadness he induced made me feel more lonely than I had ever felt before and I was forced into an existential crises due to him and a number of other external circumstances that made me realise I had never embraced my own autonomy or separateness either. The paradox is that while we attempt to find this autonomy, it is not by being alone and embracing the 'I' but rather appreciating that there is no 'I' but rather a 'we' and the autonomy is only how we perceive and understand the world around us, that therefore reason strengthens autonomy and to transcend the illusions of society. While I fought very hard to not allow the crises to overcome me, I soon realised that the disillusionment was merely a practical weakness and now I am solid because my understanding of the world is about my part to play in this world, which has pulled a focus on dedicating myself to justice, love and the betterment of society and myself and mind. That is only possible by feeling empathy or moral consciousness, being a friend to everyone in a world where no one is my friend.

Quoting unenlightened

This is a very radical position; one does not normally require that a doctor suffers from every complaint he treats, let alone a philosophical enquirer. But there is certainly some validity, to the extent at least that those who pontificate without either experience or listening will probably miss the mark.

True. Maybe I don't mean for it to be radical; the listening bit is certainly what I was getting at more so. I think with depression, a professional needs to practice open listening, which would be analogous to a medical doctor being thorough in their assessment of a physical malady. I do see too much "pontificating" about depression without first-hand experience. Maybe not so much in this thread.

Quoting unenlightened

This is a very clear characterisation that immediately suggests to me a way of understanding depression in terms of an active response to an intolerable and inescapable situation. One creates a dissociated identity as a refuge to preserve oneself from an overwhelming world. 'I' take refuge in the safety of an inner world that cannot be touched by the outer world, only to discover that I have become isolated and cannot in turn touch the world. And from there, one can see at once that there is no help for this dissociated self, either from itself or from the other in the outer world, and the only solution is for it to die.

Fortunately, this psychological death can be accomplished without physical death; indeed physical death does not do it at all. The inner self cannot by any means reach the outer world, but the inner self can end, and then one finds one is already in and part of the outer world. This is a terrifying prospect, to become, as one once was, completely vulnerable to the world, and this terror is what makes it seem impossible.

Thanks, and yes, this is all very accurate I think.

Quoting Agustino

Depression is nothing more than lack of self-esteem and identity. The depressed doesn't believe in themselves, they don't believe they have a destiny, they have no faith - nor do they work at creating it.

These are definitely some causes of depression. But there's also the "dark night of the soul" that somebody mentioned; the general, unidentifiable existential dread. I wouldn't make the assumption that that shade of depression is caused by low self-esteem. I'd venture to say it's the purest form; a depression born from searching for a meaning in the world and finding none.

Quoting Agustino

What causes depression? Expectations that you deserve X or Y to be given to you.

Wait, so low self-esteem (your definition of depression) is caused by unrealistic expectations? Couldn't low self-esteem just as easily be caused by a lack of the receiving of proper care as a child, or any other form of abuse? Neglect, etc? I'd say it's more accurate to say that those childhood abuses lead to low self-esteem, which leads to feelings of depression, for instance. Unrealistic expectations about the world are often a result of that process. They feed depression, and depression feeds them, but I wouldn't assume that the unrealistic expectations are the cause of that cycle. They could be, or they could not be, from case to case.

Quoting Agustino

Who the hell are you to complain and ask why you're suffering, etc.?

Tough love has it's place and use, and is a form of wisdom, but the other half of that wisdom is knowing when it to use it, and knowing when to offer someone a gentler form of love. Not all depressed people respond well to tough love, in fact, most probably don't. There's a different prescription for everyone. I can see why this would be your approach, because you think depression comes from unrealistic expectations of what someone deserves, which would be the appropriate time to use the "get your ass in gear" approach. Jesus over-turned the money changers tables, but he also poured oil on the feet of the prostitute.

Quoting Agustino

God told Job no point arguing with me. Who are you to question my decisions? I am the Lord your God, and if I decide to let you suffer, then you will suffer.

I don't interpret Job that way. It's meaning is certainly hidden (I think of that Rabbinic tradition of asking questions, not giving answers). People tend to focus on God's epic soliloquy at the end, as you quoted, but why is the vast majority of the book a discussion between Job and his friends, and some soliloquies from Job, etc? The focus of the book is on Job's "unjust" suffering, it would seem. But that's just the thing; the reality is that no suffering is unjust, because suffering comes to the morally blameless and the morally repugnant alike; indeed, suffering is exactly like the great beasts, the huge winds, the storms that God evokes at the end; suffering is heedless, mindless; it's the great tsunami of the human condition; it spares no one, it heeds no cries for help. And why? Because God does not judge based on moral standing. This is the whole crux of the Gospel; indeed, Job is a prophetic book in it's own way. God is a God of unconditional love. No moral perfection that I can attain can put me in or out of good standing with God. God is only ever a being of open arms.

Reply to Agustino

Also be sure to recall the chiastic structure of Hebrew Poetry. "Seven times seven, indeed, Seventy times Seventy." The structure of Job is almost chiastic in a way, and this would indicate that the "intensification" lies in the middle of the book.

Quoting Noble Dust

There's a certain strength of the will that they (we) lack. there's a certain build-up of emotional and spiritual detritus that leads to an inability to cope with anything, or deal with anything real. This is what leads to the "alternate reality" of the depressed, the addicted, the suicidal. It is exactly that, and don't mistake it: this world is an alternate reality; a nightmare world.

This is the reason for pointing out the necessity for articulating our capacity to voice autonomous thoughts and it is essentially a practice. The nightmare is likened to a bad dream where we cannot talk or scream or even move our body, trapped in a reality we know but cannot express in anyway. This is both epistemological and cognitive; if you think about PTSD, for instance, where our brains' limbic system automatically as a defence mechanism fails to process an anxious or difficult trauma-related experience and thus the experience does not become 'past-tense' but instead falls into the subconscious. The emotional reaction to that trauma continues as one identifies threats and risks similar to the same distress and shock of something that happened previously but the brain has yet to consolidate. This is also inclusive of the constant elevation of glucocorticoid that disjoints the lymbic system' capacity. To consolidate that experience and enable it to become past-tense is only possible by communicating about it, giving the very trauma a voice that one may not have had as a child and the very reason for the brain' inability to turn it into a former memory. When they do this, the emotional distress, increased feelings of threat and intrusive thoughts that cause irrational behaviour almost always dissipates and it is why the 'powerlessness' transforms to feeling empowered, and that is sensually our capacity to autonomously speak and accept the genuine reality of our circumstances.

It is not simply just chemical imbalances of the brain but the epistemic conflict between our external experiences with our private language, the intentionality whereby the intentional mental state is not accurately projected and the emotional display almost works as a signal to identify an error that we are unable to articulate; reality is what we are told and concede to something we really don't understand. The problem is that people in such states naturally seek to avoid the feelings associated and so they delay the process of recovery but making themselves even more unwell (not taking care of themselves) and thus the issue conflates or lay dormant. They can make a change, it just takes a series of steps that broadens the sensual experiences into a state of autonomy and build the courage to speak your own voice. Feeling empowered through autonomous thinking is possible only when one takes responsibility and control for their own lives rather than maintaining the same dependence we 'believe' is a given as we did when children.

Reply to Sapientia

Perhaps I misread it, my bad.

Reply to 0 thru 9

Your welcome, and thanks for your further info. I've heard plenty of these before, and have attempted some. It's a useful list, though; I'm inspired to do more of my own research.

Reply to TimeLine

Excellent thoughts.

Quoting unenlightened

There is something important here, but to put it this way does not make it easy to get at. Perhaps one could put it more open-endedly, that there may be a function, that depression 'works' in some way as a response to the world. Another question that I like better is, "what are you depressing?"

It is almost likened to a dependence on the self-defence mechanism itself that we use as a way to reduce the anxiety that is present when we genuinely confront the reality of why we feel a certain way and sometimes that reality is not pleasant that one would be happier (even if depressed) by remaining in the delusion, much more than they would confronting the reality of their circumstances. A woman in an abusive relationship, as an example, may have come from a history of abuse that the familiarity to that experience is more comforting in her reality than the idea of being on her own and why she may continuously return to an abusive partner.

Again, someone may not love their partner but the suggestion to leave them would cause a number of other 'losses' that it far outweighs it, thus one forms a certain tolerance that they blindly conform and silence their own voice to maintain a relationship that they are really unhappy in. To not lose everything else outweighs in happiness the feelings of depression or anxiety that the unhappiness of being with someone you don't love induces. We trick ourselves and very well indeed.

So, comparatively, it is to a degree that they enjoy and perhaps unconsciously work to maintain and continue the justification of depression or anxiety as it protects them from ever facing the real monster that may just be too overwhelming for them. To articulate the right language to speak and fight this monster takes time but for some, they are on auto-pilot and the defence mechanism has completely taken over.

Quoting TimeLine

Again, someone may not love their partner but the suggestion to leave them would cause a number of other 'losses' that it far outweighs it, thus one forms a certain tolerance that they blindly conform and silence their own voice to maintain a relationship that they are really unhappy in.

Bin there, done that, got the scars. "I am not the sort of person that walks out when the relationship gets difficult." - is an attractive identity, that might look from the outside more like a doormat.

Quoting TimeLine

To articulate the right language to speak and fight this monster takes time...

Well to change the situation in the world takes time, to say what needs to be said, or whatever, but my experience is that the change of mind is like flash of insight, or a burden dropped; it is instantaneous. "Actually, fuck it, I am the sort of person that walks out when the show is over." Years of misery can end with a simple insight.

"Hey, guys, you don't have to be miserable isolated and numb any more, just fuck the whole thing." But of course when one is in that world, that relationship, saying that seems both false and insulting.

Edit: And absolutely, get some sleep. There's plenty of interesting stuff out there and a ton of potions, diets, routines, etc. Try stuff out until you get a really good regular sleep the way you recharge the batteries for some energy.

Quoting unenlightened

Well to change the situation in the world takes time, to say what needs to be said, or whatever, but my experience is that the change of mind is like flash of insight, or a burden dropped; it is instantaneous. "Actually, fuck it, I am the sort of person that walks out when the show is over." Years of misery can end with a simple insight.

Spot on, but the distress previous to that epiphany, the years of anxiety or depression is the emotional language telling yourself what you already knew. That instantaneous 'actually, fuck it' experience is the very moment you become empowered to autonomously make a decision that you have already long wanted despite it all, the temptations in particular that always make you doubt yourself, makes you think it will be ok and that you should be happy, that in fact you must be wrong. You are unable to articulate why you keep things going because of something behaviourally deeper or because you silenced your autonomy through conformism in order to make your environment survive and your environment knows exactly what to do to keep you thinking that way.

It is the reason why when we transcend to that level of autonomous reasoning, we are always gobsmacked at how easy it actually is and really wonder why it took us years to do something so simple.

Quoting unenlightened

Bin there, done that, got the scars. "I am not the sort of person that walks out when the relationship gets difficult." - is an attractive identity, that might look from the outside more like a doormat.

(Y) A perfect analogy for the powerlessness one feels when conforming to make things work, sacrificing your own identity for such an unwarranted and futile outcome. It is like pretending to yourself that life is wholly determined and that there is nothing you can do about it, waiting for things to end or begin independent of you. It is thus a lack of taking control of your own life and decisions.

I also totally agree with sleep, this is vital and to get the right sleep you need to eat right and exercise (thus take care of yourself).

Quoting unenlightened

Bin there, done that, got the scars. "I am not the sort of person that walks out when the relationship gets difficult." - is an attractive identity, that might look from the outside more like a doormat.

Depends. If you have strength of character you won't be a doormat. You'll be an invitation to something more. A doormat is characterised by need - a doormat is captive to their needs, self-centered and will do anything to get them fulfilled. A doormat is obsessed and attached to winning.

A great man on the other hand can tolerate the pettiness of those smaller than them because he doesn't need anything from them. The person who doesn't need anything from the world has conquered the world. He is free. He is always a winner, because if the world refuses him, he never gives up. That person can demand from the world, and the world will do all it can to fulfil his demands - because it will be in awe at his character. He will start by being laughed at, but soon he will be seen as a god amongst men. The character of a great man overcomes the pettiness of those around him. His willingness to suffer, his willingness to go to the very ends of the world. The way he gambles with his life, as if it were nothing - a petty thing to be thrown away - that is what raises him above the rest.

Wilful misunderstanding...


The great man, the great man, historians his memory
Artists his senses, thinkers his brain
Labourers his growth
Explorers his limbs
And soldiers his death each second
And mystics his rebirth each second
Businessmen his nervous system
No-hustle men his stomach
Astrologers his balance
Lovers his loins
His skin it is all patchy
But soon will reach one glowing hue
God is his soul
Infinity his goal
The mystery his source
And civilisation he leaves behind
Opinions are his fingernails


Maya Maya
All this world is but a play
Be thou the joyful player

https://genius.com/The-incredible-string-band-maya-lyrics

Reply to Agustino

Quoting Agustino

Yes, but how can you not recognise the constraints you're under? Most people are very good at this part - too good. They always find the reasons why something can't be done.

No, you mean they always invent reasons why something can't be done, coming up with constraints they're not actually under.

Your rhetoric suggests that willpower alone can break constraints one step at a time. But willpower has to take constraints into account when doing so, not theology.

You may negate any of your attempts at persuasion and may neither take advices nor complaints from me but your "God gave you that so you have the duty to" paradigm surely doesn't fool me.

Quoting Noblosh

No, you mean they always invent reasons why something can't be done, coming up with constraints they're not actually under.

Not necessarily - they may also overestimate the constraints they're under, blow them out of proportions.

Quoting Noblosh

Your rhetoric suggests that willpower alone can break constraints one step at a time.

Willpower can break passivity and inaction.

Quoting Noblosh

You may negate any of your attempts at persuasion and may neither take advices nor complaints from me but your "God gave you that so you have the duty to" paradigm surely doesn't fool me.

Does it mean I'm trying to persuade every single time I tell you something about my own beliefs? I don't think so. Even an atheist can understand the meaning of "God gave you that so you have the duty to" -> you didn't create yourself nor are you responsible entirely for who you are - so you have a duty to the world (which gave you everything).

Quoting TimeLine

It is actually telling that you mentioned Thoreau. Well over a decade ago now when I was young...

Wow. Thank you very much for the insightful and helpful post, both personal and transpersonal at the same time. Much there to ponder. It added much to this discussion, and to the forum, imho. Well done. (Y) (L)

Reply to unenlightened

We do learn by making leaps of insight, of course. Funny thing about that, about twisting science data to support a paradigm! See, the idea is, that we gradually learn and get better at things, because neurologically new behavioral patterns cause new neural structures to form, or different neurons start communicating and gradually moving closer together, the more you do it.

So, they had these rats, and they were recording them getting better at mazes and such, and their neural activity, and the data made it appear as if they were getting gradually better because they generalized it over time. Truth was of course, that they were clearly having insightful moments that instantaneously made them better in some respects at what they were doing, and they would continue like that until another epiphany.

Depression also goes by another name, which I was wondering what some of you think about. Namely, 'learned-helplessness'. There's also a less stigmatizing name called, 'failure to adapt'.

What do you think about these names? Do they contribute to understanding depression?

Reply to Question Here's a cool video on learned helplessness:

Quoting Question

Depression also goes by another name, which I was wondering what some of you think about. Namely, 'learned-helplessness'.

I think learned helplessness might be relevant to what's going on in the mind of a depressive. The thing is, learned helplessness experiments were about specific situations. The elephant in the video learned to be helpless abut the rope tied to its leg. But where's the evidence that learned helplessness is also general as in the case of depression? When we are depressed we aren't depressed about one thing. It's more of a mood thing. It would be interesting if there were experiments on generalized helplessness.

Quoting Purple Pond

It would be interesting if there were experiments on generalized helplessnes

I think generalized helplessness would just be a collection of different "ropes" tied to one's psyche.

Reply to Agustino

Quoting Agustino

you didn't create yourself nor are you responsible entirely for who you are - so you have a duty to the world (which gave you everything)

Doesn't follow. That's my main problem with your reasoning: you come up with unfounded imperatives.
We can owe none our existence because it is not received.

If the world owes me nothing then I owe the world nothing. I do not concern myself with that which doesn't reciprocate.

In psychiatry depression is considered a chemical perturbation and is, obviously,treated as such. How much philosophers will subscribe to this interpretation depends on the degree of difference they see between mind and body. The body affecting the mind is scientific but the mind influencing the body is, as yet, psuedoscience.

Quoting TheMadFool

In psychiatry depression is considered a chemical perturbation and is, obviously,treated as such. How much philosophers will subscribe to this interpretation depends on the degree of difference they see between mind and body. The body affecting the mind is scientific but the mind influencing the body is, as yet, psuedoscience.

So, the placebo effect is just superstition gone wild?

Quoting Question

So, the placebo effect is just superstition gone wild?

To be frank, the placebo effect is still explainable in terms of chemistry. It doesn't do the job of creating that sharp distinction between mind and body desired by some philosophers (dualists?).

Quoting TheMadFool

To be frank, the placebo effect is still explainable in terms of chemistry.

That depends on whether you're willing to make the strict claim that beliefs are all material. But, then if we suppose that for a moment, how do you explain the efficacy of some beliefs? In other words, how or why are they so effective? Makes homeopathy relevant at the dismay of the doctors.

Quoting Noblosh

If the world owes me nothing then I owe the world nothing. I do not concern myself with that which doesn't reciprocate.

This is the wrong understanding. The world owes you nothing because it has already given you everything.

Quoting Question

That depends on whether you're willing to make the strict claim that beliefs are all material. But, then if we suppose that for a moment, how do you explain the efficacy of some beliefs? In other words, how or why are they so effective? Makes homeopathy relevant at the dismay of the doctors

These are questions which I hope people with the resources to investigate are asking. Speaking for myself I think there's a ray of truth in those subscribing to dualism of some kind. My gut instinct is that the universe has yet to reveal all of its secrets.

Reply to Agustino If I have everything already, why bother doing anything?

Quoting Noblosh

If I have everything already, why bother doing anything?

Don't be purposefully obnoxious. It's not that you have everything (you don't), but rather that everything that you have has been given by the world.

Reply to Agustino If everything I have the world just gave me, then I have no individual worth and therefore my input is not even worthwhile, so again, why bother?

Quoting Noblosh

If everything I have the world just gave me, then I have no individual worth and therefore my input is not even worthwhile, so again, why bother?

You're being purposefully obnoxious.

Reply to Agustino Please clarify.

Reply to Noblosh There's nothing to clarify, you're just not reading what I'm saying charitably, and misinterpreting things.
Quoting Noblosh

If everything I have the world just gave me, then I have no individual worth and therefore my input is not even worthwhile, so again, why bother?

It doesn't follow from everything you have being given to you that you have no individual worth for example. These are two distinct ideas. You who prise "logic" should know that.

Reply to Agustino It's logical: if I never earned anything because everything was given to me, then I have no individual worth.

Quoting Noblosh

if I never earned anything because everything was given to me, then I have no individual worth.

No this doesn't follow.

1) I didn't earn anything
2) Therefore I'm not worth anything

That's an incomplete argument right there. (2) doesn't follow from (1).

Reply to Agustino Of course it does, worth is derived from what has been earned.

Quoting Noblosh

Of course it does, worth is derived from what has been earned.

Who says so?

That's another premise you're trying to smuggle in without justification.

Reply to Agustino Now who's being purposefully obnoxious?
earn: to come to be duly worthy of or entitled or suited to; to make worthy of or obtain for

Reply to Noblosh You can't even recognise a syllogism?

1) I didn't earn anything
2) Worth is derived from what has been earned
3) Therefore I am not worth anything.

Your so called definition is nothing but premise 2. It's not a certainty, it's a premise. I'm asking you what justifies that premise? The conclusion is only as strong as the premises.

Reply to Agustino There are words and there are definitions for them. Do you want me to justify language?

Quoting Noblosh

There are words and there are definitions for them. Do you want me to justify language?

Yes there are definitions you make up in order to hide behind your nonexistant philosophy.

1.
to gain or get in return for one's labor or service:
to earn one's living.
2.
to merit as compensation, as for service; deserve:
to receive more than one has earned.
3.
to acquire through merit:
to earn a reputation for honesty.
4.
to gain as due return or profit:
Savings accounts earn interest.
5.
to bring about or cause deservedly:
His fair dealing earned our confidence.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/earn

Since when is earning (in any of the above definitions) necessarily tied to what someone is worth? Is a baby worth nothing because they haven't earned anything? Really this BS is hardly worth discussing. You either put in proper effort to defend your positions or there's really nothing to talk about.

Reply to Agustino Deny definitions all you want but it's your position that I owe the world anything at stake here.

With all due respect... would you two mind taking your verbal wrestling contest elsewhere please? Making this thread sad and depressing to read is unfortunately not an example of "Depression and Philosophy". Thank you.

Reply to 0 thru 9 On the contrary, determining our relation(s) with the world is at the core of assessing depression.

Quoting Noblosh

On the contrary, determining our relation(s) with the world is at the core of assessing depression.

Seems pretty uncontroversial to me to say that we owe our lives to the blind watchmaker, or Nature, or God, or chance, or history, or whatever as long as we don't claim to have earned it already. And given that our lives will be taken from us at some point, it does not seem that the ecological and moral economy allows us to earn more than our keep from the world, at best. Accumulating worth like profit seems out of the question.

Reply to unenlightened Owing implies an obligation to reciprocate so unless you consider worship valid, there's no way to reciprocate so then owing a conceptual entity our selves makes no sense. Also, life is a condition, it can't be literally exchanged. If you're speaking figuratively, then please clarify.

Quoting Noblosh

Owing implies an obligation to reciprocate

Owing to the categorical stupidity of this declaration, I will not be attempting to engage with it.

Quoting unenlightened

Owing implies an obligation to reciprocate — Noblosh

Owing to the categorical stupidity of this declaration, I will not be attempting to engage with it.

Then why do it?

to owe: to be under obligation to pay or repay in return for something received
to reciprocate: to make a return for something

If you have nothing valuable to say, please don't.

Reply to Noblosh Common man... why are you purposefully being such a sophist? It's crystal clear that you're making absolutely no effort to engage in discussion, and because of that it's difficult to reply to you.

Reply to Noblosh

verb (used with object), owed, owing.
1.
to be under obligation to pay or repay:
to owe money to the bank; to owe the bank interest on a mortgage.
2.
to be in debt to:
He says he doesn't owe anybody.
3.
to be indebted (to) as the cause or source of:
to owe one's fame to good fortune.
4.
to have or bear (a feeling or attitude) toward someone or something:
to owe gratitude to one's rescuers

Take a look at 3. (from dictionary .com)
To take their example, one might owe one's fame to good fortune, but one does not have either the obligation or the means to repay it. In the case of life, which one owes in the same way to the world, the world will reclaim its gift in due course, one is not obliged to hasten to repay.

Quoting Noblosh

When you have nothing valuable to say, please don't.

I had something valuable, but you did not take advantage. Instead, you thought you could argue from the meaning of words, to the nature of the world. This is known in the trade as 'magical thinking'.

All this talk about value...

What a subjective thing value is.

Depression is a form of nihilism, which in of itself is quite an objective conclusion to arrive at.

Only the insane are never depressed.

One can be happy and depressed, methinks.

There is truth to depression.

Reply to Agustino You made no argumentation and you're still the one complaining.
What makes me a sophist? What do you expect from a discussion?
Clarification would indeed help the discussion and you avoid it. Case in point:
Quoting Agustino

It's crystal clear that you're making absolutely no effort to engage in discussion

That's just a wild claim and so is this:
Quoting unenlightened

I had something valuable

Which is continued from yet another such claim:
Quoting unenlightened

Owing to the categorical stupidity of this declaration

Also cherrypicking and nitpicking don't make for strong arguments but silly ones:
Quoting unenlightened

Take a look at 3. (from dictionary .com)
To take their example, one might owe one's fame to good fortune, but one does not have either the obligation or the means to repay it.

From the same dictionary:

indebted: committed or obligated to repay a monetary loan; obligated for favors or kindness received

Agustino's comments:
Quoting Agustino

you didn't create yourself nor are you responsible entirely for who you are - so you have a duty to the world (which gave you everything)

Quoting Agustino

The world owes you nothing because it has already given you everything.

But one can't have a duty to good fortune, in fact the context in which the example is used as a phrase is when its subject is precisely deem not worthy which just strengthens my argument that:
Quoting Noblosh

If everything I have the world just gave me, then I have no individual worth and therefore my input is not even worthwhile

So we were not using a figurative variant for to owe that means tracing the source of but the literal one.
Still if you'd stubbornly and unreasonably argue that I deny a dictionary's definition by dismissing its poor example then you'd have misunderstood, I don't deny owing one's fame to good fortune is a valid usage but that because of its figurative nature you can't subject it to reasoning in its literal form.
But that situation would be off the point anyway.

So... do you people really want a better discussion or do you just want me to stop challenging your beliefs?
Ah, relax, that was just a wild claim.

Reply to Question But what's nihilism value for you then?

Quoting Noblosh

But what's nihilism value for you then?

Of it being True, what can have greater value than truth?

Quoting Question

Of it being True, what can have greater value than truth?

Usefulness?

Quoting Noblosh

So... do you people really want a better discussion or do you just want me to stop challenging your beliefs?

>:O Why do you think you've challenged my beliefs? You think you've made me doubt them?

Reply to Noblosh

A gun can be useful. How is it's use the greatest philosophical value?

Reply to Noble Dust

Alternatively, what is the value of truth, per se?

Reply to John

Or, how is value true?

Reply to Noble Dust

I don't know. It seems as if truth is just truth and value is just value. Truth certainly seems to be valuable in some situations. I mean if you are ill with a condition that can be treated then a true diagnosis is of great value.

My question, though, is as to whether truth just in itself is somehow valuable, and not merely for practical reasons.

So, I clearly understand the question as to the value of truth (even if there seems to be no easy answer to it) but the question as to the truth of value is by no means so clear. If it is clear to you, then perhaps you could elaborate?

Quoting John

My question, though, is as to whether truth just in itself is somehow valuable, and not merely for practical reasons.

That clarifies what you meant, for me. But, still...I have trouble with the whole thing; the language of the whole situation. Truth being "somehow valuable", "not merely for practical reasons"? So, how is value predicated? Why are practical reasons things we should try to pursue? I don't understand these sorts of questions and arguments because I don't understand how you can use language to predicate things you think are significant and then afterwards ask questions about the word "truth".

Reply to Noble Dust

The question for me is not to do with pursuing practical reasons. Not even in the Kantian sense; I never found the idea that we are warranted in believing in Freedom, Immortality and God for practical (in this context meaning 'moral') reasons convincing.

It's more to do with whether it is valuable to believe (in the sense of 'live according to') what is genuinely believed to be true just on account of the fact that we do genuinely believe it is true, or is it just that we cannot help believing what we genuinely believe to be true. Is it more important to be authentic than it is to be happy in, for example, believing what we know to be comforting but quite likely false (given that we are capable of doing that)?

Quoting John

The question for me is not to do with pursuing practical reasons. Not even in the Kantian sense; I never found the idea that we are warranted in believing in Freedom, Immortality and God for practical (in this context meaning 'moral') reasons convincing.

I wasn't saying that; my use of "practical reasons" was a quote of you, and the use of the term was negative in both contexts (your use and mine).

Quoting John

It's more to do with whether it is valuable to believe (in the sense of 'live according to') what is genuinely believed to be true just on account of the fact that we do genuinely believe it is true, or is it just that we cannot help believing what we genuinely believe to be true.

Your language here is hard to parse; are you saying "is earnest belief valuable, or can we just not help being earnest?" That's how I read it. As such, it doesn't make a lot of sense, so I must be misreading it.

Quoting John

Is it more important to be authentic than it is to be happy in, for example, believing what we know to be comforting but quite likely false (given that we are capable of doing that)?

I'll take a weird side-road here and say that I think both are true. Authenticity is the ultimate reality, in a way...right? Inauthenticity is reproachable; it's the worst. It's disgusting. But...I think back to what I said recently in another thread, when quoting Dostoevsky: "I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too." My interpretation of Dostoevsky here is that the free will of the individual trumps rationality. Rationality has nothing to say in the face of blithe free thought, other than "you're an idiot!". And in this sense, irrationality wins. Free thought ultimately is not specifically rational. Rationality is a component of free thought, not it's predicate.

Reply to John

Also, John, you didn't address this:

Quoting Noble Dust

Why are practical reasons things we should try to pursue? I don't understand these sorts of questions and arguments because I don't understand how you can use language to predicate things you think are significant and then afterwards ask questions about the word "truth".

Hopefully this, quoted from here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1469/discussion-three-types-of-atheism#Item_31

Quoting John

Even if you could know (per impossibile) that religion is false, and yet you were nonetheless able (per impossibile) to believe that it is true, and to do so would greatly enhance your joy of living, would it then be wrong somehow to believe?

will help to clarify what I meant.

Quoting Noble Dust

I'll take a weird side-road here and say that I think both are true. Authenticity is the ultimate reality, in a way...right? Inauthenticity is reproachable; it's the worst. It's disgusting. But...I think back to what I said recently in another thread, when quoting Dostoevsky: "I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too." My interpretation of Dostoevsky here is that the free will of the individual trumps rationality. Rationality has nothing to say in the face of blithe free thought, other than "you're an idiot!". And in this sense, irrationality wins. Free thought ultimately is not specifically rational. Rationality is a component of free thought, not it's predicate.

Yes, is not much of what we take to be "rational" precisely the inauthentic voice of "das Man", or 'the they" to quote Heidegger. The second part of your passage here seems to be reflecting that idea somewhat.

Reply to Noble Dust

Sorry, I wasn't saying that practical reasons, in themselves, are things we should try to pursue, so I didn't understand the relevance of the question.

Quoting John

Even if you could know (per impossibile) that religion is false, and yet you were nonetheless able (per impossibile) to believe that it is true, and to do so would greatly enhance your joy of living, would it then be wrong somehow to believe?

Now, I have a problem with these theoretical posits. You say "per impossible", and I say, "yes, it's all impossible, the things you describe". So, I don't see how this is even an argument. Forgive me, I don't mean it to sound so harsh, because this is something I see a lot in philosophy in general. But, basically, why make an argument that's actually impossible? What does it achieve?

Quoting John

Yes, is not much of what we take to be "rational" precisely the inauthentic voice of "das Man", or 'the they" to quote Heidegger. The second part of your passage here seems to be reflecting that idea somewhat.

I don't know Heidegger, but I'll got with it. The bits I've read of him weren't disagreeable for me.

Reply to Noble Dust

The point of the thought experiment is to focus on the question of whether it could be somehow in itself wrong to believe what we really feel deep down in our hearts is false, despite the fact that believing gives great comfort and even enhances life. I believe that many people are able to compartmentalize their minds in such ways as to do exactly that. But if you are not interested in pursuing this line of inquiry, that's no problem.

Quoting John

The point of the thought experiment is to focus on the question of whether it could be somehow in itself wrong to believe what we really feel deep down in our hearts is false, despite the fact that believing gives great comfort and even enhances life. I

Ok, so, comfort over truth? I vote truth. But I vote truth because I think something as basic as "comfort" is a mild form of the various experiences and states of possible consciousness that are subsumed under "truth". I realize that's some arcane language. Basically, truth is the hierarchical primary thing, and "comfort" would be somewhere down on the scale.

Reply to Noble Dust

This sounds like the Buddhist or Hindu idea of going for satchitananda over transient worldly pleasure or merely comforting belief. How many, if any, actually achieve it, though? I would say that the hardships of discipline require unwavering belief and also offer their own kinds of comfort.I say it requires belief because if you are not already there, then how do you know it is a real possibility and not a mere chimera? How could you know you are not merely wasting your life?

These kinds of things can never be confirmed intersubjectively, though. What one chooses to believe and why one chooses to believe it are deeply personal matters.

Quoting John

This sounds like the Buddhist or Hindu idea of going for satchitananda over transient worldly pleasure or merely comforting belief. How many, if any, actually achieve it, though?

Well, again, my autodidactic stance shows itself. I don't know anything about that. But the question of how many can achieve a state of devotion to truth, and truth only, is a hard question. Even for myself, I adhere to the idea intellectually, but not often in my every day life. I routinely indulge in pleasures and distractions that add no value to my life, even to a detrimental effect.

Quoting John

I would say that the hardships of discipline require unwavering belief and also offer their own kinds of comfort.

Eh, I agree to some extent, but I also think discipline comes with personality. I have a personality of not being disciplined; my older brother, for instance, is way more disciplined. This is a typical meme, if not scientifically backed; the older sibling is the disciplined one. In any case, I don't think discipline is just something spiritual; I think discipline is something many people seem to innately possess, and it's use is far-ranging, not just for spiritual discipline.

Quoting John

.I say it requires belief because if you are not already there, then how do you know it is a real possibility and not a mere chimera? How could you know you are not merely wasting your life?

Well, I don't know, you can't really say one way or another. This doesn't particularly bother me.

Quoting John

These kinds of things can never be confirmed intersubjectively, though. What one chooses to believe and why one chooses to believe it are deeply personal matters.

You've used the word "intersubjective" before, and I'm not sure what you mean by it. I'd like to know.

But, the whole business about belief being deeply personal always leaves me cold. Belief is just the basic framework of how we all see the world we live in. Sure, it's personal. But that aspect of it that relates to our personality doesn't avail itself to any value. The personal nature of humanity obtains it's own value, if that makes sense. The particular beliefs of individuals has no value; value exists in the person, not in the belief.

Quoting Noble Dust

But, the whole business about belief being deeply personal always leaves me cold. Belief is just the basic framework of how we all see the world we live in. Sure, it's personal. But that aspect of it that relates to our personality doesn't avail itself to any value. The personal nature of humanity obtains it's own value, if that makes sense. The particular beliefs of individuals has no value; value exists in the person, not in the belief.

"How we all see"; that is intersubjectivity. How I see, or how you see; that is subjectivity, or personailty. I agree with you that what is deeply personally believed acquires its vale by virtue of its being deeply personally believed. But then the troubling question is; did Hitler deeply personally believe in his worldview?

I don't really see why the idea of belief being deeply personal should leave you cold. It is through personality that belief acquires its warmth, I would say. To believe something on account of intersubjective pressure is what sucks the warmth, the viscerality out of believing, as I see it. This is just the question of authenticity and inauthenticity in a different guise.

Quoting John

"How we all see"; that is intersubjectivity.

Ok. I can at least go with that for now.

Quoting John

I agree with you that what is deeply personally believed acquires its vale by virtue of its being deeply personally believed. But then the troubling question is; did Hitler deeply personally believe in his worldview?

Oh, of course he did. Absolutely. This is an important point, and it signifies exactly this: belief is neutral, and not inherently positive. So, if belief is neutral, this suggests that there could be "right" and "wrong" beliefs. It seems pretty simple to me; I've always felt that this doesn't need to be a complex philosophical issue. Hitler believed in his view; Churchill believed in his view. Now, who was "right"? How do you go about making your claim about who was right?

Quoting John

I don't really see why the idea of belief being deeply personal should leave you cold. It is through personality that belief acquires its warmth, I would say. To believe something on account of intersubjective pressure is what sucks the warmth, the viscerality out of believing, as I see it.

Ok, so what I mean is that the less philosophical jargon of "whatever you believe is your truth! That's the truth! For you!" Is what leaves me cold. I guess I was reading your post that way, but you probably didn't mean that. I have a tendency to be too intuitive with my posts.

Reply to Noble Dust

Unfortunately I have to stop now ND, but I will return to this conversation as soon as I am able.

Reply to John

No problem, looking forward.

Quoting Agustino

Why do you think you've challenged my beliefs? You think you've made me doubt them?

No, it's not the same thing. Beliefs can be challenged only when the one holding them refuses to doubt them.

Reply to Noble Dust I'm just saying a gun is valuable because it's useful.

Quoting Noble Dust

This is an important point, and it signifies exactly this: belief is neutral, and not inherently positive.

That's true if you are referring to the fact of belief and not to the content of beliefs, and I haven't suggested otherwise.

Quoting Noble Dust

The particular beliefs of individuals has no value; value exists in the person, not in the belief.

I agree, as per above, that the fact of believing is neutral, but I don't think "the particular beliefs of individuals has no value" is right because "value exists in the person," and what people are is determined by what they believe. Of course I mean significant beliefs here; the kinds of beliefs that people base their lives upon.

Quoting John

what people are is determined by what they believe.

So the definition of the person is based on belief? (sorry, I thought I responded to this thread)

Reply to Question What is your picture of?

Reply to JJJJS

It's a hydra from a Captain America. Not a fan of Captain America, just that I liked the image.

Reply to Question it looks like Marchesk's picture

Reply to JJJJS

Indeed, never realized that haha.

Strange.

Reply to Noble Dust

I'm not sure what you mean by "definition of the person". It's common enough to say that people are defined by what they do. What people do is determined by what they believe; but I'm not sure it follows that people are defined by what they believe. Maybe indirectly?

Quoting John

I'm not sure what you mean by "definition of the person".

It corresponded to your phrase "what people are".

Quoting John

It's common enough to say that people are defined by what they do.

I'm not sure I buy this notion. So it's common; so what? Defined in what way? Sometimes actions aren't visible; it may be true philosophically that actions determine motives, but only visible actions determine how someone is defined by the community or the society. Actions not seen (or "non-actions") can reveal just as much about a person...except for the fact that those actions aren't seen.

Quoting Noble Dust

It corresponded to your phrase "what people are".

What a person is and the "definition of the person" are not the same. A person may be defined in terms of what they are, but a person is not constituted by any definition of them. In other words you are not any definition of you.

Quoting Noble Dust

I'm not sure I buy this notion. So it's common; so what? Defined in what way? Sometimes actions aren't visible; it may be true philosophically that actions determine motives, but only visible actions determine how someone is defined by the community or the society. Actions not seen (or "non-actions") can reveal just as much about a person...except for the fact that those actions aren't seen.

Common ways of speaking reflect the logic of intersubjectivity. A person is defined as a spouse, a parent, a carpenter, a poet, an artist, a composer, a scientist, a philosopher or whatever only on the grounds of what they do and/or have done (although in the cases of marital and parental definitions sex also comes into it).

There seems to be a contradiction involved in saying that people could be defined in terms of unseen actions. I suppose one could define oneself, to some extent at least, in terms of what one merely aspires to, or dreams they will, become. But again that would be defining yourself in terms of your beliefs, because your beliefs determine what you aspire to, or dream you will, become.