• Grre
    196
    When philosophy does broach the limits of mental illness (ie. mental wellness/the Will to life ect.) it rarely extends very far, leaving much of that topic to the field of psychiatrists and psychologists which don't do much than observe and suggest treatment rather than explore the causes and benefits of a specific mental disruption, or even do much to consider the origin or use for such mental oddities, seeing them only as a malevolent anomaly that must be limited (hence the focus on research for what "causes" autism to prevent it, rather than better understand/utilize it).

    My point is, what do you guys think can be considered when looking at such anomalies such as autism spectrum disorders, BPD, ODD, personality disorders ect.? As a female (women are much more likely to be misdiagnosed as men are) individual with high functioning autism (misdiagnosed as "gifted" as a child) who has spent of my life working to mask and camouflage my social and personal deficits and difficulties, I am only now realizing the extent of my strengths as an individual with high functioning ASD, a long with of course, better understanding my weaknesses and where those may have originated from. Some I certainly inherited from my parents, who are both super intelligent OCD overachievers; with my dad the super weird one. Some I think I'm naturally more sensitive or predisposed to, ie. sensory issues, my anxiety ect.
    Did not mean to turn this into a personal monologue, my second point is, to what extent do these mental oddities relate to philosophy? As they are mental they raise interesting questions about the relation to the mind and body, and our relation between our internal/subjective states and the external world. Sensory issues in particular, are perhaps our first solid evidence on how relatively similar people can so radically experience the so-called 'objective' world differently, thus eroding our clear conceptions of a unified, absolute, and objectively true external reality, we cannot see past our internal realities. That being said, I can train myself to function in various sensory environments, but that's only after extreme and purposive practice, and my being able to put up with over stimulation (ie. from light, sound, exhaustion, or feel) is largely a testament to my willpower, social training, and good nature, rather than to the existence of said over stimulation. My overcoming it does not deny its initial existence.
    Lastly, to what extent do such mental abnormalities BENEFIT rather than harm the individual, and in what ways are these potential benefits being (either purposively or unknowingly) overlooked? For example, especially in the disciplines of philosophy and science, there are a lot of very talented individuals who were waylaid or somehow impeded by their mental or developmental issues. That is recorded fact, ie. the suicides of Plath or Woolf, or the manic episodes of Shakespeare, or the social issues and ASD of Einstein; but in what ways did these abnormalities help these individuals? Or even on an evolutionary scale? For example, my friend posed a working theory that many of these abnormalities such as ASD are considered "issues" in the first place because they impede some kind of social function, such as ASD impedes empathy understanding, ToM, and expression of emotion or feeling-but to that extent that such social abilities are considering lacking in the ASD individual, there is that much more "space" available for the time and energy to be devoted elsewhere, such as intelligence, skill, ect. In simpler terms, having less ability and capacities in social interactions leads to decreased social interaction, which leads to an adaption to desire social interaction less = frees up time and energy for interest and involvement in other areas of life, such as extreme and focused interests (once considered the defining feature of a sub-disorder Aspergers, now encompassed as another potential characteristic of ASD. Meaning, ASD and other 'issues' are nothing more than an evolutionary balancing of skills and capabilities; less water in one cup = more water in another cup, and it can also be considered an evolutionary safeguard; such as my initial examples of mental illnesses (often resultant from or comorbiditating with such abnormalities as ASD) the natural limitations each deficit, such as the example ones in ASD result in issues that eventually do limit and curtail the strengths in another area, whether by way of secondary symptoms such as depression and substance abuse, or directly like ASD emotional expression, organization, and regulation deficits do cause real emotional turbulence in my life that impact my productivity, quality of life, and overall wellbeing-thus limiting my development even in my areas of strength such as school. The negative implications of such disorders and abnormalities act as a leveller and equalizer of extremes, preventing any one individual to become too extremely good or bad in certain capacities.

    Anyways, not sure how much sense that made but as you can see I'm just interested even in opening up a general discussion as this is an otherwise non-existent in the field of philosophy, even in such focuses as philosophy of mind or philosophy of emotion ect.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    Did not mean to turn this into a personal monologue, my second point is, to what extent do these mental oddities relate to philosophy?Grre
    Philosophy in the ordinary sense has the highly personal gist of "love" for something. Nowadays, and in large part thanks to Nietzsche this sort of love has turned into a love-hate relationship in regards to truth. Then, there's the highly existential aspect of philosophy, that prods and sustains one's curiosity or interest in it. So, yeah...

    Lastly, to what extent do such mental abnormalities BENEFIT rather than harm the individual, and in what ways are these potential benefits being (either purposively or unknowingly) overlooked?Grre

    There's a theory that depressive realism is a more accurate view of the world. Besides, I really have no idea in what terms or criteria you mean to evaluate the qualifier "benefit" here.

    Anyways, not sure how much sense that made but as you can see I'm just interested even in opening up a general discussion as this is an otherwise non-existent in the field of philosophy, even in such focuses as philosophy of mind or philosophy of emotion ect.Grre

    Personalities? I think, philosophy attracts a lot of introverts with a highly analytical mindset. Some time ago I posted about what you might consider a "benefit" in philosophy is "intelligence". Most of the great philosophers of the past must have had extraordinarily high IQ's. So, you can focus yourself on analyzing this in that regard, which is easier to evaluate and asses.
  • tim wood
    8.7k
    It seems to me that most of humanity's accomplishments - good and bad - are done by freaks. I do not mean people with three legs or two heads, but rather people who in some particular way or ways are some 5-10 or more standard deviations from the norm. Consider professional basketball. Millions watch and enjoy. Very few comprehend what they're watching. And of those, very few of those could even think about trying to duplicate any of what they see. Similarly with art, similarly with almost any human endeavor that has space for skill to exhibit itself.

    And sometimes it can be deceptive. within the constraints and confines of this or that moment the ordinary person might come close to something, but it's at best for a second or two. Now more recently I come to see that where power is concerned, people who have special skills at viciousness sometimes take control - the remedy for that a separate topic.

    This rareness is the proper study of medicine and biology, secondarily of psychology. Neither of these is in itself any kind of philosophy. And the only "philosophy" that would be useful would be the thinking about the thinking about, of these topics.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    Yeah, there is actually a correlation between a SD increase of 1 and productivity gains. Some think this is dubious given that intellectual ability goes hand in hand with the directionality of 'thinking'...
  • alcontali
    1.3k
    My point is, what do you guys think can be considered when looking at such anomalies such as autism spectrum disorders, BPD, ODD, personality disorders ect.?Grre


    Unless you feel like doing something absolutely extreme, I guess that it is better not to worry about it. In my personal experience, these things go away pretty much completely when you take the time to pray on a daily basis. Unfortunately, it only works, if you believe that it will. Otherwise, it really doesn't.
  • T Clark
    13k
    to what extent do these mental oddities relate to philosophy?Grre

    I have been diagnosed with Type 2 Bipolar Disorder. That's less intense and debilitating than Type 1, which is what used to be called "manic depressive disease." It certainly has had a significant negative impact on my life, particularly with anxiety. At the same time, I don't think it has any impact on where I fit on the spectrum of humanity. I'm not out in space somewhere. I'm on a continuum with most everyone else, just a little further out on the tail of the distribution in some characteristics. I am very high energy. I can be very irritable, although drugs helped. As I said - anxiety. Drugs have helped with that too. I'm not often depressed. I'm sometimes impulsive, but mostly in relatively benign ways.

    On the good side, I'm smart, verbal, and funny. Again, I fit on the spectrum with all the rest of us. I'm not a genius. I'm a competent engineer, but I've worked with quite a few whom I think are better, or at least more rounded professionally.

    In line with that, philosophically I focus on responsibility. There is nothing in my makeup that makes me any less responsible for my behavior than other more "normal" people. To me, that's the key to dignity and self-respect. People have a right to expect me to behave within the limits of acceptable behavior, although I've pushed those limits sometimes. On the other hand, I have a right to expect others to cut me some slack. Cut everyone some slack. I've been lucky in that regard.

    I recognize that not everyone with a mental disorder fits in with the mainstream as much as I do. I don't mean this as a reference to you. I don't know you. At the extremes I think it's obvious that people do have diminished capacity and should not be held responsible for their actions as much as I am. That's a dangerous thing to do. I feel like a human, a person. I try to act like one and expect to be treated like one.

    Sensory issues in particular, are perhaps our first solid evidence on how relatively similar people can so radically experience the so-called 'objective' world differently, thus eroding our clear conceptions of a unified, absolute, and objectively true external reality, we cannot see past our internal realities.Grre

    Also social issues. I'm not a believer in objective reality. Everything there is and everything I know is an inseparable mixture of something on the outside and something on the inside. Right at the interface between those is society. Much of what we call reality is socially constructed. For those of us who have some differences socially, accepting societies views on reality can be a challenge. That's not right, it's not a challenge, it's a choice. I feel like I have the freedom not to see things the way everyone else does. That's one of the best things about me. Whatever problems you've had, I hope you have that same experience of freedom, at least sometimes.

    Or even on an evolutionary scale? For example, my friend posed a working theory that many of these abnormalities such as ASD are considered "issues" in the first place because they impede some kind of social function, such as ASD impedes empathy understanding, ToM, and expression of emotion or feeling-but to that extent that such social abilities are considering lacking in the ASD individual, there is that much more "space" available for the time and energy to be devoted elsewhere,Grre

    I am very skeptical of evolutionary explanations for human behavior.
  • Fine Doubter
    200
    Hi there Grre, I recommend the writings of Donna Williams (a.k.a Polly Samuels) and Wendy Lawson.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.