Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

No_Bison_3116 OP t1_ir5xk63 wrote

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

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

I prefer the Marxist analyses of Mental Illness.

2

johnnyknack t1_ir9amz1 wrote

I found the article somewhat simplistic, myself, and its depiction of psychiatry something of a caricature - certainly in relation to how it's practiced where I live (Ireland). It might be more accurate elsewhere, where medicalisation of mental illness seems so rampant that there might be some justification for identifying psychiatry with the "individual defect theory" the author names. In most parts of Europe, though, psychiatrists do still refer patients for therapy - they don't only prescribe medication. Yes, they do have that power, and yes that is open to abuse, but that is some way from identifying the power and the abuse as if they were one.

1

No_Bison_3116 OP t1_ir9tnhb wrote

Why does one need justification for that ?Why not just pure Iogic and reason ? I know Europe largely uses the ICD and America the DSM but AFAIK and both are based around the 'individual defect theory'. It is funny how society tries to jump through hoops, mental hoops, here, to try to defend the status quo --in this case Psychiatry.

1

johnnyknack t1_ira5o8g wrote

By "justification", I mean "rationale" . In other words, I'm saying that rationale does not apply everywhere.

Please don't equate me with "society". This is literally the second message you've ever received from ,e

1