Unless you're a substance dualist, it seems to me that the idea of "mental illness" is nothing more than a confusion. A lexical error which has, I think, led to more harm than good.

The idea of the "mind" being higher than the material, and somehow more sacrosanct (due in no small part to the aforementioned dualism, as well as religion) has led to the stigmatisation of diseases and illnesses to do with one's emotional or cognitive well-being.

People, generally, are more apt to take medicine for ills of the body - such as for arthritis, muscle injuries, heart problems, et cetera - yet more shy to take the likes of anti-depressants or anti-psychotics. It is especially bad for illnesses like psychopathy, schizophrenia, borderline, or pretty much any personality disorder or psychosis. If that needs putting in perspective, think of the contempt some people who suffer from just depression have to face.

The point here, fundamentally, however is not that illnesses such as those just mentioned themselves don't exist. The point is that they're the proximate result of some physical affliction. Sociopathy can be caused by damage to the prefrontal cortex and emotional trauma, psychopathy by bad genes, schizophrenia by both genes and environment.

It seems altogether beneficial to view mental illnesses in this way. Not only is stigmatising mental illnesses as some sort of false, or even evil, disease hindering research, it also disrupts treatment. Mental illnesses are, always and everywhere, reducible to physical causes and are, necessarily, physical illnesses.

If somebody can name me a mental illness not caused by physical factors, go ahead. You won't be able to do it, though.

As a point of digression, couldn't the unresponsiveness to medication from some depressives be indicative of further physical divergence?

The fact that one person responds to a certain kind of treatment while another doesn't merely indicates that there are further neurological differences between those people, doesn't it?

Although, re-reading your answer, you did sort of cover that in the subsequent paragraph >.>

Your title had me a little worried, but after reading the body, yeah, I agree.

^^

also, can you tell me the difference between socio- and psychpathy
i don't remember and I'm to lazy to search.

unless you're just making a semantical point.

Essentially.

It just so happens that this semantic issue has played upon our perception (as the course of language usually will) in one of the most malicious ways I can imagine.

i agree 100%. DID is a load of crap.

Quote from: The HΓ₯n on October 06, 2014, 04:42:50 PM

i agree 100%. DID is a load of crap.

. . .

DID is a genuine disorder.

elaborate.

I read your post, but it was a response to the title. also, DID has been on my mind kinda too.

Just to be absolutely, 100% clear I'm not denying that mental illnesses and disorders exist.

I'm saying the categorisation of them as "mental" disorders as opposed to a physical aberration is an error.

you're really clever, ashy