Mental health under an illegitimate state

boethius

I'm making a new thread as it's not a directly related to the systemic racism in America issue.

boethius What do you think about Stoicism in relation to mental health amidst societal injustice? (Which was the historical context in which Stoicism arose). I see clinical psychology and psychiatry as trying to serve the same ends as Stoicism by (sometimes) different means.

I have severe anger management problems that I’ve struggled with all my life, that I’ve always defended as reasonable anger in response to genuine wrongs, even though my angry responses only ever made things worse for me, not better. Last year I started having crippling panic and anxiety problems over nothing that I could identify (everything in my life was the best it had ever been at that time), which finally made me go looking for medication to help bring that under control. It did, I think, though it took a long time and was uneven in progress so it’s hard to tell.

I say “crippling” literally, in that I was not able to function as well in pursuit of my own goals, not able to get up the guts to face the things that I was panicking about. In retrospect I see my anger problems as crippling in a different way: I could have more effectively done something about the things I was angry about if I hadn’t been so overwhelmed with rage and out of control that I couldn’t think straight.

A calm, clear, focused mind is not necessarily one that is unquestioningly accepting of everything going on. It’s just a mind that is in control of itself, beholden only to its own reason, one that can decide rationally what is or isn’t actually a problem and what the best responding to that problem would be, and then most importantly, is able to do that best response because it is the best response, rather than feeling irrationally compelled to behave differently, hiding under the covers or punching holes in one’s own walls or whatever else one’s overwhelming emotions might otherwise push one to do instead of, you know, solving the problem. — Pfhorrest

The arguments I presented in the Racism issue are from a political perspective of evaluating the state's legitimacy to diagnose mental health issues and the role of psychologists in maintaining state order. Of course, a illegitimate state diagnoses dissidents as mentally ill and people who complain of intolerable working conditions as mentally ill.

You can verify that mental health providers are agents of the state in making an appointment for the purposes of exploring the justification of arson and looting as a political tool against oppression, if that oppression is really there and what other methods might be available to compete with arson and looting in a struggle against oppression, and to share one's struggle with these issues. I can guarantee you that even if you were to conclude arson and looting was not, not yet anyway, a viable pathway, that this agent of the state will not only provide no useful political analysis but the only consequence of this meeting is that you will be placed on a list.

For instance, China's "re-education camps" are entirely premised on the diagnosis of mental disease requiring "a cure". In promoting and developing a "scientific discipline" that is so easily compatible with such state mechanisms of oppression and social control, fitting so easily within such a tyrannical structure with the aid of western consultants educated in western institutions of so called learning, the entire international community of psychology, and by extension academic community that tolerate them, are equally guilty in Chinese genocidal re-education crimes.

America is not worse than China because the riots are worse, but better than China precisely because the riots are worse.

However, that being said, we cannot conclude from this that mental health does not exist, only that, without the presumption that agents of the state are there to help, mental health (as well as just living in general) is much more difficult and complicated.

That mental health exists need not be thrown out, only a deep suspicion of agents of the state ability to help provide it.

As to the subject of philosophy and mental health; indeed, philosophy is the only available foundational approach to mental health as "what is actually true" is needed to evaluate our situation, and we cannot learn what is true from a community so dedicated to manipulating us to buy this or that while supporting the creation of the technological totalitarian Chinese state: the first, full spectrum, mental prison from which there maybe no escape once finalized.

However, it is a mistake to view philosophy as a therapy. This contemporary development of "philosophical therapy" is simply the thrashing about of a discipline that is becoming aware of it's inadequacy to deliver any real value to society as a whole and, indeed, being always at the forefront of the greatest crimes against humanity: manipulative mass marketing being the most global and potentially the most harmful activity a group of humans has ever embarked upon.

Stoicism will improve mental health if you come to the conclusion that stoicism is really true.

All I can say is that the journey towards truth is a mentally hazardous journey. We grow up given a mental structure, to toss it aside, or any foundational part of it, and build a new structure is the definition of a mental breakdown. The role of psychology in society is to scare you away from doing any such breaking down; the role of philosophy is to invite you to see clearer what is worth tossing aside and what is worth building upon.

Analysis, however, if it is useful at all, can only ever provide a map of where you are and where you can go. But without emotions you will not be motivated to go anywhere. Consider perhaps, the stronger the emotions, the greater the journey you are called to travel.

Injustice cannot be separated from wild rage; the rage of those carrying out the injustice and the rage of those wanting it to stop. Therefore, one must accept that the rage can only be fully healed when humanity is healed, and until that day comes it is a blessing and not a curse; for without the rage we would not be motivated to do anything about it, and injustice would prevail among curious onlookers, which would be a more terrible end.

Echarmion

The arguments I presented in the Racism issue are from a political perspective of evaluating the state's legitimacy to diagnose mental health issues and the role of psychologists in maintaining state order. Of course, a illegitimate state diagnoses dissidents as mentally ill and people who complain of intolerable working conditions as mentally ill. — boethius

But far from all illegtimate states rely on this. Most just brand dissidents as "traitors to the cause": Robust definitions of mental illness aren't required.

You can verify that mental health providers are agents of the state in making an appointment for the purposes of exploring the justification of arson and looting as a political tool against oppression, if that oppression is really there and what other methods might be available to compete with arson and looting in a struggle against oppression, and to share one's struggle with these issues. I can guarantee you that even if you were to conclude arson and looting was not, not yet anyway, a viable pathway, that this agent of the state will not only provide no useful political analysis but the only consequence of this meeting is that you will be placed on a list. — boethius

Why would you expect useful political analysis from someone whose field of work is mental health? And I am pretty sure it'd violate the principle of confidentiality to place you on some list for things you talked about in abstract.

For instance, China's "re-education camps" are entirely premised on the diagnosis of mental disease requiring "a cure". — boethius

Are they? I was not under the impression they're premised on mental disease at all, but rather on lack of proper socialisation. They're called re-education camps after all, not asylums.

In promoting and developing a "scientific discipline" that is so easily compatible with such state mechanisms of oppression and social control, fitting so easily within such a tyrannical structure with the aid of western consultants educated in western institutions of so call learning, the entire international community of psychology, and by extension academic community that tolerate them, are equally guilty in Chinese genocidal re-education crimes. — boethius

And by this logic the inventor of gunpowder is equally guilty in every single war and murder involving guns. That's a completely absurd moral philosophy.

However, that being said, we cannot conclude from this that mental health does not exist, only that, without the presumption that agents of the state are there to help, mental health (as well as just living in general) is much more difficult and complicated.

That mental health exists need not be thrown out, only a deep suspicion of agents of the state ability to help provide it. — boethius

So, who isn't an agent of the state?

However, it is a mistake to view philosophy as a therapy. This contemporary development of "philosophical therapy" is simply the thrashing about of a discipline that is becoming aware of it's inadequacy to deliver any real value to society as a whole and, indeed, being always at the forefront of the greatest crimes against humanity: manipulative mass marketing being the most global and potentially the most harmful activity a group of humans has ever embarked upon. — boethius

Mass marketing is worse than genocide. You heard it here first folks.

the role of philosophy is to invite you to see clearer what is worth tossing aside and what is worth building upon. — boethius

Are you interested in my judgement on whether or not your post is worth building upon?

A Seagull

We grow up given a mental structure, to toss it aside, or any foundational part of it, and build a new structure is the definition of a mental breakdown. — boethius

I don't think that follows at all. Maybe it is a sign of sanity in a mad world.

boethius

But far from all illegtimate states rely on this. Most just brand dissidents as "traitors to the cause": Robust definitions of mental illness aren't required. — Echarmion

It's not an exclusive definition.

However, the roll of psychology to brand dissidents as mentally ill is primarily focused on children, over which the state has much more power and it is far more effective to destroy mentally a would-be-dissident adult in the name of mental health than to simply brand adult politically lucid dissidents as mentally ill, which is mostly ornamental as you suggest.

So, who isn't an agent of the state? — Echarmion

The vast majority of people of whom the state requires to create value, at at least shut up and not bother the state and who are not given any reasonable protection are not agents of the state. Academic benefit from the privileges the state provides (quality of life, reasonable legal protection of property, etc.), in return they are expected to conform to state policy and carry out state intellectual endeavors.

Are they? I was not under the impression they're premised on mental disease at all, but rather on lack of proper socialisation. They're called re-education camps after all, not asylums. — Echarmion

Oh, my bad, just "lack of proper socialisation" requiring a little fun re-education camping to rectify.

What? Is this direct from the politburo?

Mass marketing is worse than genocide. You heard it here first folks. — Echarmion

Yes, manipulative mass marketing underpins every modern destructive human enterprise, including the the Nazi genocide.

What convinced women to smoke? What convinced society the "science isn't settled" on smoking? What convinces society to over-consume with reckless abandon? What convinces global society that sustainability would be "too inconvenient"? What caused the obesity pandemic? What convinced Americans to pursue disastrous endless wars? What maintains China's system of state control? What maintains Trump's echo-chamber of die-hard supporters?

Anything truly terrible in society on most national and, moreso, on a global level, there is always manipulative mass marketing techniques convincing people to carry out or then do nothing to stop that terrible thing.

I am fully convinced humanity does not "want" to destroy the planet's ecosystems, and, therefore, if that is the case, someone must be manipulating humanity to behave in away despite "what they want".

And yes, the 6th mass extinction and the destruction of the entire world's capacity to support civilization, and perhaps any human, is far more terrible than any particular genocide. Clearly destroying the whole set is worse than destroying a subset.

You have not heard it here first, it is a pretty old belief of the environmental movement that essentially destroying the entire planet is the worst thing we can possibly do and the main foe in trying to stop it is manipulative mass marketing. No one of note is making the case we should destroy the planet, and therefore the only cause of our actual planet destroying activity is the manipulative mass marketing techniques that lead people to do what they believe they shouldn't.

Are you interested in my judgement on whether or not your post is worth building upon? — Echarmion

I am not interested in your judgement; nothing you have so far posted leads me to believe I should seek your advice on any particular subject nor that you are debating in good faith with a genuine reflection upon any of the conversations you interject yourself within.

boethius

I don't think that follows at all. Maybe it is a sign of sanity in a mad world. — A Seagull

I mean "mental break down" in the trivial cognitive sense that changing core beliefs is to "break down" those beliefs, but also in the social sense that so doing may lead people to accuse you of suffering a "mental break down" regardless of how you feel about it, while also the very real risk of, not in the sense of a disease, the "feeling of mental breakdown" when reviewing core beliefs. I do not mean "mental breakdown" in the sense of insanity; we are in agreement there.

Isaac

the entire international community of psychology, and by extension academic community that tolerate them, are equally guilty in Chinese genocidal re-education crimes. — boethius

I'm sorry if you've had some bad experiences with psychologists, but accusing us of complicity in genocide is not ok.

boethius

I'm sorry if you've had some bad experiences with psychologists — Isaac

I have no experience with psychologists; I avoid them for reasons that maybe pretty clear.

As a privileged corporate executive I am, in any case, immune from state interference in my personal life, insofar as I don't break any laws, and I am also, in any case, immune from the "call out culture" you are trying to engage in.

I'm not about to fire myself for being called out on controversial "not ok" statements, so there's no use engaging in such theatrics.

Which is why corporate executive life is the life for me, it is the only position in capitalist society where you don't have to censor yourself.

but accusing us of complicity in genocide is not ok. — Isaac

I can make whatever accusations I want. What matters is if those accusations are true.

The global economic system is global, fully integrated with China as "the world's factory", and carrying out destruction on a before unimaginable scale.

Academics have not only the knowledge and the time to understand how this global system functions, they are the group most responsible for creating it, and a group that can most easily undertake "non-violent" actions with disproportionate leverage (a large scale academic strike could not be ignored, cannot be easily solved with scabs off the street, and would bring about rapid policy changes).

Since academics have the knowledge to understand the global system, have the skills and time to organize themselves, have actions available to disproportionately affect policy, have a supposed dedication to truth and justice, and they do not use their power, but primarily benefit from the global system, therefore they are responsible, perhaps the most responsible of any group, for the destruction the global system has brought to our planet and our people. With knowledge comes responsibility.

unenlightened

Since academics have the knowledge to understand the global system, have the skills and time to organize themselves, have actions available to disproportionately affect policy, have a supposed dedication to truth and justice, and they do not use their power, but primarily benefit from the global system, therefore they are responsible, perhaps the most responsible of any group, for the destruction the global system has brought to our planet and our people. With knowledge comes responsibility. — boethius

That is what we hippies call 'a heavy trip' you're laying on us. It took me right back to the early seventies at uni, where, in the final year all my fellow revolutionaries ditched the flares for sharp suits, cut their hair to conventional length and started going to interviews with ICI and applying for teacher-training courses. And the story was that they were going to 'fight for change from within. Perhaps they believed it; I never did.

I suggest that what is needed is despair. In 1968 the doomsday clock was at 2 minutes to midnight, and I did not expect to become old. And now there is a similar despair amongst the youth that their world will remain inhabitable. But as long as academics think academia inhabitable, they will not despair of it enough to risk their lives and livelihoods.

fishfry

I'm sorry if you've had some bad experiences with psychologists, but accusing us of complicity in genocide is not ok. — Isaac

How about complicity in torture?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30792344/

Isaac

How about complicity in torture? — fishfry

Yes, that too. By what ethical standard does studying some subject somehow make me complicit in the actions of others studying the same subject?

Are engineers complicit in the destruction caused by the weapons manufactured by one sub-group?

Why psychology, why not the whole of Human sciences (of which psychology is just a branch? The whole of biology (of which human sciences is just a branch), or all science (of which biology is just a branch), or all human investigation (of which science is just a branch)?

If we're to condemn people for the actions of others with whom they share some common field then we might as well condemn us all, we're not that far removed from each other.

fishfry

Yes, that too. By what ethical standard does studying some subject somehow make me complicit in the actions of others studying the same subject? — Isaac

Psychologists did a lot more than "study" torture. If you're unfamiliar with the voluminous body of evidence of the complicity of the psychological profession in the US's torture regime, you're ignorant. Did you read the link I provided? Why don't you Google around? It was a major scandal in the psychological community and still is. If you claim to be a professional in that discipline, I urge you to repair your ignorance of this topic ASAP. I've been following this issue since Bush (and Pelosi and other prominent Democrats) turned the US into a torture regime. It reflects very badly on the psychology profession.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/psychologists-are-facing-consequences-for-helping-with-torture-its-not-enough/2017/10/13/2756b734-ad14-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jul/10/us-torture-doctors-psychologists-apa-prosecution

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dangerous-ideas/201412/the-complicity-psychologists-in-cia-torture

If we're to condemn people for the actions of others with whom they share some common field — Isaac

I'm doing no such thing. The profession's own ethical standards are at issue and the evidence is clear. Educate yourself. I'm not stating a controversial position. I'm stating established fact.

Isaac

Psychologists did a lot more than "study" torture. If you're unfamiliar with the voluminous body of evidence of the complicity of the psychological profession in the US's torture regime, you're ignorant. — fishfry

I didn't say otherwise. I said that the only thing I have in common with them is that we study the same subject. I'm asking why that makes me complicit in their actions. Restating what their actions were is irrelevant. I'm asking you about the ethical principle you're applying by which I'm complicit in the activities of those with whom I share nothing more than a common area of study.

Why, for example, does commonality in a broad field of study imply moral complicity where commonality of study in, say, politics, does not morally tie the peace activist to the activities of violent fascists? Both study politics and use that study to further their activities.

The profession's own ethical standards are at issue and the evidence is clear. — fishfry

I'm neither a member of the APA nor do I have any affiliation with them. It's ridiculous to suggest that one country's professional organisation at one point in history represents the entire global field for all time.

The British Psychological Society...

this [the APAs position] legitimation is in stark contrast to the position adopted by the World Medical Association, its 1975 declaration of Tokyo following the BMA review of the Northern Ireland experience. This declaration proscribed the participation of physicians in designing, or even monitoring, interrogation strategies. This rule was also adopted by both the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Psychiatric Association.
Moreover, the 1982 United Nations General Assembly addressed the ethical questions associated with the participation of medical and other health workers in the interrogation of detainees. These principles establish as an absolute rule that health workers ‘may not engage, actively or passively, in acts which constitute participation in, complicity in, incitement to or attempts to commit torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ (cited in Rubinstein et al., 2005).
Therefore, by allowing psychologists to participate or assist in the interrogation process, the APA is adopting a position out of step with both the medical profession (as Anne Anderson of Psychologists for Social Responsibility pointed out in a letter in 2006 to APA President Gerald Koocher) and the wider UN declaration on health workers, while at the same time making a declaration that appears to condemn psychological torture.

The BPS (2005) made a clear declaration against torture and the participation of psychologists and the use of psychological knowledge in its design.

Fucking Americans. There are other countries in the world you know. Why don't you educate yourself about them before making your next neo-colonialist assumption that American institutions represent the whole fucking world.

fishfry

Fucking Americans. — Isaac

Right you are. I was referring to American psychologists, the American Psychological Association, and good old all-American torture. USA! USA! USA!

Pfhorrest

“We only torture the folks we don’t like; you’re prolly gonna be okay. Yea-ea-ea-eah, it’s a party in the CIA.“

Pfhorrest

Also FWIW on the topic of clinical mental health care and its interaction with capitalism, the last time I saw a therapist it was about work specifically, about how I was self-harming in fits of rage over stress at work, and her recommendation was to leave that job. I was reluctant to do so because despite how stressful it was it was still the best job I had ever had, and lifted me further out of poverty than I had ever been. I came to her wanting a way to be mentally stronger and keep on doing that stressful job even though I also know that reasonably no job should put someone through that kind of stress, but out of all the shitty options available that was the least shitty. She had nothing useful to help make me a better worker better able to quietly keep dealing with the piles of stress I was trying to deal with.

Point is, my experience kinda flies in the face of boethius’s account. No psychologist of any kind is trying to tell me I’m crazy for not being able to put up with this bullshit capitalist world or trying to make me shut up and deal with it. I’m the one looking for help in dealing with it, and they always tell me I’m doing admirably and the problem is with my circumstances, not with me. But of course they can’t fix those circumstances; it’s not like a therapist can buy me a house or something.

Isaac

the last time I saw a therapist it was about work specifically, about how I was self-harming in fits of rage over stress at work, and her recommendation was to leave that job. — Pfhorrest

Yes, but she didn't immediately strap on an AK47 and storm the White House for you, so she's basically just a capitalist shill!

Point is, my experience kinda flies in the face of boethius’s account. — Pfhorrest

Hardly surprising as

I have no experience with psychologists — boethius

It would seem there's no 'account' at all, just some fantasy being played out where psychologists are agents of the deep state - we're hoping to secure the film rights.

Right you are. I was referring to American psychologists, the American Psychological Association, and good old all-American torture. USA! USA! USA! — fishfry

You need help with your sociopathic attitude. I'm going to recommend a course of increasing civil unrest, demonstration and finally the overthrow of your fascist oppressors. If that doesn't help you can come back next month and we'll put you on Benzos.

boethius

That is what we hippies call 'a heavy trip' you're laying on us. It took me right back to the early seventies at uni, where, in the final year all my fellow revolutionaries ditched the flares for sharp suits, cut their hair to conventional length and started going to interviews with ICI and applying for teacher-training courses. And the story was that they were going to 'fight for change from within. Perhaps they believed it; I never did. — unenlightened

Thanks for coming for the ride!

Yes, the change from within strategy has clearly been unsuccessful. Of course it can work but invariably leads to getting fired as soon as the institution realizes it's working.

I suggest that what is needed is despair. In 1968 the doomsday clock was at 2 minutes to midnight, and I did not expect to become old. And now there is a similar despair amongst the youth that their world will remain inhabitable. But as long as academics think academia inhabitable, they will not despair of it enough to risk their lives and livelihoods. — unenlightened

Definitely, academics need to "adult up" and realize there is no point teaching the young to manage a world that cannot plausibly be argued will be there. There's not even any plausible jobs now, so I'm not sure what their apologetics even consists of today, justifying why these "lefty professors" go through the motions anyway ... ah yes, the money, I agree there.

Isaac

academics need to "adult up" and realize there is no point teaching the young to manage a world that cannot plausibly be argued will be there. There's not even any plausible jobs now, so I'm not sure what their apologetics even consists of today, justifying why these "lefty professors" go through the motions anyway ... ah yes, the money, I agree there. — boethius

Well, why don't you show us the way? What is it the world of the

privileged corporate executive — boethius

is doing that's not just going through the motions for the money.

boethius

It would seem there's no 'account' at all, just some fantasy being played out where psychologists are agents of the deep state - we're hoping to secure the film rights. — Isaac

What the hell are you talking about? I never said "deep state agents".

You seem to be going off the rails into some fantasy version of this conversation.

Psychologists are agents of the state because they need state license to practice psychology (whether clinical or research) and therefore must conform to state policy to get and maintain such license. They represent state authority when dealing with individual patients or research subjects (far more so, when doing so with state and/or state proxi corporate subsidy).

PhD is a token of the state. In return for that token certain actions and inactions are expected.

I am referring to academic psychologists and clinical psychologists, both, of whom, cannot "do their work" without the state. I have already explained that they are selected because their beliefs conform to state policy. An illegitimate state will select for beliefs that help maintain an illegitimate state.

Of course, this does not apply to simply anyone that has merely studied psychology, but only those engaging in state activity.

Undergraduate students I would agree are not, or then barely so, agents of the state, they are merely filled with (again in an illegitimate state) state propaganda. You can verify this because if you poke them it spills out on the floor.

Isaac

Psychologists are agents of the state because they need state license to practice psychology (whether clinical or research) — boethius

Interesting. Talk me through the licensing process for research in the UK. I'm concerned I might have been seriously breaking some rules for the past 18 years.

I am referring to academic psychologists and clinical psychologists, both, of whom, cannot "do their work" without the state. — boethius

In what way do they differ from your own work in that respect? Are you independent of the state somehow? That would truly be a remarkable feat and an account I'd love to hear.

I have already explained that they are selected because their beliefs conform to state policy. — boethius

You are confusing 'explaining' with 'delerious ranting'. Explaining involves evidence and a reasonable sequence of cause and effect.

boethius

Well, why don't you show us the way? What is it the world of the — Isaac

Yes, if it is agreed that all actions against a illegitimate state are justifiable in principle, that all that is remained to be analysed is what actions are effective we can have that conversation in a new thread.

is doing that's not just going through the motions for the money. — Isaac

I have already said I am an agent of the state as a conscript.

I am also an agent of the state as a corporate executive. From time to time I de facto represent the state and state policy in diplomatic engagements, and, most importantly, I receive state subsidy to carry out state policy.

The modern corporations are extensions of state power, they cannot even formally exist without the state, are the primary beneficiary of the state judiciary, police force, infrastructure, defense activity etc.

I am not an important agent of the state; the state never sits down and says "we need boethius to go do this or that", but I am far more an agent of the state than the restaurant waitress or then the conscript that is unable to evaluate state policy and cannot be credibly said to be lending his or her agency to the state (this is not my case).

As I have already stated, I have no problem living in and being an agent of the state in a legitimate state, which, to me, means majority rule with credible safeguards against the interference of both money and propaganda in political process.

I will advise my fellow citizens that there are possibly even better ways of social organization worth considering, but I am content and grateful with what I already have.

Everything hinges on state legitimacy; that is the central issue.

Isaac

I am also an agent of the state as a corporate executive. From time to time I de facto represent the state and state policy in diplomatic engagements, and, most importantly, I receive state subsidy to carry out state policy.

The modern corporations are extensions of state power, they cannot even formally exist without the state, are the primary beneficiary of the state judiciary, police force, infrastructure, defense activity etc. — boethius

So why not set your own house in order before embarking on a rant about some other group of people who's methods and restrictions you're clearly completely unfamiliar with, and over whom you have no influence? Why isn't this a rant about the role of the corporate executive in propping up illegitimate states, you'd know a lot more about the subject, could actually enact any ideas which arose and can influence others in the same field.

As it is, it just sounds like an attempt to pin the blame on anyone but yourself.

Isaac

Oh and just so we don't get too distracted by this diversion. I'm still waiting on your exposition of

Psychologists are agents of the state because they need state license to practice psychology (whether clinical or research) and therefore must conform to state policy to get and maintain such license. — boethius

Where, in non-clinical psychology, does the state dictate research policy? Which psychology policy document has the state been in executive control of, and which sections of it represent restrictions based on state policy?

boethius

Where, in non-clinical psychology, does the state dictate research policy? Which psychology policy document has the state been in executive control of, and which sections of it represent restrictions based on state policy? — Isaac

I have already stated that the mechanism is the state selecting for people who already believe in state policy, most importantly of all that the state is legitimate.

In a legitimate state, this isn't a problem: the state is legitimate and selects for people who believe this true thing.

In a illegitimate state, there is a problem: the state is illegitimate and selects for people who deny this reality.

The state is not by definition bad, only extremely dangerous. Handle with care.

Isaac

I have already stated that the mechanism is the state selecting for people who already believe in state policy, most importantly of all that the state is legitimate. — boethius

No, you stated that all psychologists (clinicaland research) need a state license to practice. I'm asking you what form that licence takes around the world and where, in it's provisions, is the requirement to uphold state policy.

Notwithstanding that. How does the state carry out this selection procedure. What is the actual mechanism? I was never asked if I thought the state was legitimate, nor was I queried in any way about its policies (directly or indirectly) at any point in my academic career. In fact, I've been quite vocal in my professional criticism of government policy and most students I've had have made Che Guevara look a bit conservative. Where in all this is the state vetting who is going to make it into academic research and by what means?

Brett

↪boethius

What convinced women to smoke? — boethius

Oh those pathetic women who can’t think for themselves.

Brett

↪boethius

As a privileged corporate executive — boethius

What does that mean? If you’re a corporate executive I would bet you need to censor yourself all the time. In fact I would bet you hardly know who you are anymore.

Brett

manipulative mass marketing being the most global and potentially the most harmful activity a group of humans has ever embarked upon. — boethius

What corporate executive would not be part of this? How could you function as a corporate executive and play no part in mass marketing?

unenlightened

So I applied to go to uni in 1969, the year after the students had occupied the chancellors' building' staged sit-ins and started their own courses. Amongst other things these included studies of various revolutionary thinkers that were not on any of the courses. Marcuse, Fanon, Friere, Laing, and others. I wasn't really aware of it at the time, but I went to a rather strange interview that I later realised was entirely focussed on establishing whether or not I was going to be 'difficult'. I was a naive and ignorant wimp, so I got an unconditional offer.

More useless anecdote, I fear, but at least its British, damnit. But one does not need a conspiracy theory. The university admin had had a lot of difficulty and the place had become associated with trouble. So they were concerned to forestal any continuation of the trouble by selecting out the trouble makers. Change is hard work, uncomfortable and uncertain. we don't like it. But even before one's first degree, never mind the PhD, 'the state' or as i tend to call it 'the status quo' selects and filters. As of course it must in the situation of educational scarcity that has been set up. Most of us have to be ignorant experiment fodder for the elite.

Brett

↪unenlightened

Change is hard work, uncomfortable and uncertain. we don't like it. — unenlightened

It’s ironic isn’t it, because that’s essentially what we are. We are all agents of change, we can’t help it.

unenlightened

We are all agents of change, we can’t help it. — Brett

Yes. Individuals are agents of change, but institutions are agents of stability. (approximately)

Mental health under an illegitimate state

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions