Philosophy And Depression
There are a lot of presuppositions that go into a psychological diagnosis of a mental illness. The whole branch of study called “psychiatry” is often based on a reductionistic model of the human psyche. On the one hand our experiences are illusory because they are simply the products of chemical interactions while on the other hand there is an assertion as to what the “normative” interior life should be like or at least not be. An ideal subjective state, even if it’s impossible to map out the precise neuro-chemical configurations amenable to this. This has resulted in the self-contradictory absurdity of a cheerful nihilism. There is no meaning, but you can still be happy. It seems pretty evident as a universal to what it means to be human is the desire to have meaning or significance. Evolutionary psychologists put the end of this impulse in social interaction as a means of serving the unquestioning end of “survival” which is another dogmatic assumption. Last I checked people who are merely “surviving” say that negatively so how can happiness be subservient to it if it supervenient? The subjective state of joy or other passions should correspond to that flourishing. Yet a drug addict who is high cannot be called “happy” except in a limited sense. This in large part why I think a lot of psychology and psychiatry is bullshit. Don’t get me started on the unrestrained idiocy of evolutionary psychology. This article gives an insightful analysis as to why the diagnosis of depression in particular is problematic.