is being depressed or even anxious the human default? — TiredThinker

The 'first noble truth' of Buddhism is that existence is 'dukkha' - generally translated as stressful, sorrowful, unsatisfactory. It is inherent to human existence, unavoidable - but there is a path out of dukkha, which is to identify the root cause. All of this is laid out and elaborated in innummerable ways by various schools of Buddhism.

The broader point however is that I think many ancient philosophies were oriented around the fact of existential dread and its amelioration - Stoicism, Platonism, and other Greek philosophies also approach it in those terms.

The radical problem with modern culture is that it seeks to 'normalise' the human condition, instead of seeing it as problematical or flawed, and then can't understand why happiness is still so hard to obtain.

Then you would see how such advice doesn't apply to my research-based analysis above. — Garrett Travers

It teaches me you confuse a normative analysis with a factional one, not for the first time. Your research is moreover circular. You define children as loving and when they exhibit behaviour that is not loving than that is somehow learned through emulating others. The descriptions though of positive energy allow for both good and bad behaviour.

What I do grant you is that they seem to be less depressed. But well also depression is not a normative category. The good and the wicked can both be depressed. What I do not grant you is that "they are deeply loving by nature". Or only in the trivial sense that thye do not bite the hand that feeds them. I do think by the way that love the the ontological human condition so if you mean it in that sense you might be right too.

However what I take issue with is that you seem to equate this disposition with friendliness, or goodness. If that is the case than somehow this fall from grace in later years must be explained. It can't be explained by behaviour displayed by others as also the behaviour of these others must be explained. In other words how come these originally loving creatures became corrupt in the first place. The whole story seems to play in to a rather Rousseauean / Christian narrative of the uncorrupt child. Given the small associations I suspect the researchers merely saw what they wanted to see, as you do too.

But is being depressed or even anxi[ety] the human default? — TiredThinker

No. Fear is the affective default (and stupidity the behavioral default). IMO "dukkha" is the derivative effect (pace Siddhārtha Gautama).

:up:

It teaches me you confuse a normative analysis with a factional one, not for the first time. Your research is moreover circular. You define children as loving and when they exhibit behaviour that is not loving than that is somehow learned through emulating others. The descriptions though of positive energy allow for both good and bad behaviour. — Tobias

No, it teaches you that you perceive a confusion. My normative analysis comes from the fact that all concepts are generated by the brain to orient behavior for better outcomes, which is what ethics is in practice. That the brain produces concepts to inform behavior in accordance with the genetic/biological imperative to achieve/maximize homeostasis that one's brain is ensuring at all times across every domain of function, and that ethics itself is a concept humans generated for just that very purpose. Thus, when one develops conceptual frameworks for behavior that violate the requirements for human homeostasis, such is by definition an ethical violation, and produces exactly the results one would expect from ethical violations. I myself do not define children as loving, I said they areby nature loving, explorative, game generating, and otherwise not miserbale. An observation born out by data across multiple studies - that was a broad analysis I sent you - and one that, for the vast majority of children, only differs among those with abusive parents. Which is of course, an ethical violation for all the same reasons. Positive Energy does allow for "bad" behavior. But, again, children themselves are not capable of generating coherent conceptual frameworks of behavior, meaning they always will fall under the ethical purview of the parents. Also, that positive energy does not imply misery, but precisely the opposite. You bring me a depressed kid, and I'll bring you an abuser to account for it. With almost no exceptions, and none that I have ever known to exist. In fact, I regard child abuse to be the primary example of evil in the world from whence most others are generated, or perpetuated.

What I do grant you is that they seem to be less depressed. But well also depression is not a normative category. The good and the wicked can both be depressed. What I do not grant you is that "they are deeply loving by nature". Or only in the trivial sense that thye do not bite the hand that feeds them. I do think by the way that love the the ontological human condition so if you mean it in that sense you might be right too. — Tobias

Yes, this is all consistent with what data I am aware of on the subject. Except the good being depressed, that only happens in times of crisis for them, not as a state of long-term being. Kids are less depressed because they haven't formed coherent neural networks, or frameworks, of data that are heavily reinforced by emotion that inform their actions and values. But, they will be able to detect neglect, resulting in homeostatic decrements, that over time can form into misery quite early. And yes, I mean the ontological stuff with love. It's not like they're doing it for clear reasons, its natural to them. Parents are the first people they pair bond with, and pair bonds with one's parents are more reinforced, and go deeper than any others we develop, enhanced by the 20 year rearing period and life-long interaction.

However what I take issue with is that you seem to equate this disposition with friendliness, or goodness. — Tobias

Not one bit.

If that is the case than somehow this fall from grace in later years must be explained. — Tobias

It can, it's called the capacity for generating coherent conceptual frameworks of values, behaviors, desires, and every other complex idea humans generate. That is when the "fall from grace" is realized in people whose intrinsic imperatives toward homeostasis are being constantly disregarded. "Nobody cares about my feelings," I'm sure you've heard it. That's a surface manifestation of what I'm talking about. Depression is long-term frameworks of the stuff in operation, and unequivocally related to how people feel about themselves in regards to others, and how those others treat them.

That should cover the rest of your comments. And Rousseau/ Christian and me are antithetical to one another. I formulate my views on data and philosophy.

The radical problem with modern culture is that it seeks to 'normalise' the human condition, instead of seeing it as problematical or flawed, and then can't understand why happiness is still so hard to obtain. — Wayfarer

That's a juicy morsel for us. Can you elaborate a little?

The question you ask could be answered partly in terms of the psychoanalytic thinking of Melanie Klein. She looked at object relations in infancy, especially in the relationship between the child and mother. She describes ambivalence in how the child sees the mother and describes the interplay of the paranoid schizoid position, which involves feelings of hostility and anger with the mother. Following this, the child goes onto the stage of guilt and the need for reparation. Klein sees these two basic positions as the starting point for other relationships and psychology in adulthood.

Of course, she is speaking about psychological positions as opposed to clinical descriptions of moods. However, there is a recognition of how suppressed anger can lie behind depression. The nature of clinical depression is complex because it involves body and thought, and how these come together. It could be seen as a default position in relation to how it can be a cessation of activity, like the calm after a storm, a break or breakdown of the strength of the ego before a person is able to move forward or find a new direction.

Can you elaborate a little? — Tom Storm

I sometimes entertain the rather subversive idea that the role of modern culture is to make the world a safe space for the ignorant ('ignorance' in the traditional sense of the absence of wisdom or sagacity). Liberalism is exclusively egological, that is, the individual ego, buttressed by science and living under the social contract, is the ultimate judge - which almost always devolves to 'what I like' (hence identity politics). And capitalism as a system thrives on generating false wants and useless appetites.

(That was the theme of some of the New Left, especially Marcuse' 'One Dimensional Man', which I never really engaged with when it was ragingly popular in the late 60's, although I've since come to understand the acuity of his insight and the accuracy of the description. But my own leanings are more traditionalist and not oriented around Marxist political economics.)

Anyway - with respect to the OP, there are states of endogenous depression, which I'm sure you know, and which are properly the province of mental health and medical professionals. But there's also the dimension of existential angst. That's more what I'm addressing. I see it as a religious problem in the broader sense, as articulated by Carl Jung:

I have treated many hundreds of patients. Among those in the second half of life - that is to say, over 35 - there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life.

I know that'll probably start another argument but regardless that's how I see it.

I sometimes entertain the rather subversive idea that the role of modern culture is to make the world a safe space for the ignorant ('ignorance' in the traditional sense of the absence of wisdom or sagacity). Liberalism is exclusively egological, that is, the individual ego, buttressed by science and living under the social contract, is the ultimate judge - which almost always devolves to 'what I like' (hence identity politics). And capitalism as a system thrives on generating false wants and useless appetites. — Wayfarer

Welcome to the "subversive" dark side. :up:

I sometimes entertain the rather subversive idea that the role of modern culture is to make the world a safe space for the ignorant ('ignorance' in the traditional sense of the absence of wisdom or sagacity). — Wayfarer

Gotta say, Wayfarer. Just about everything I've read from you has been insufferably non-objective. But, this is the singular best bit of absolute precision I've seen from you yet. I must say bravo, my man. :strong:

capitalism as a system thrives on generating false wants and useless appetites. — Wayfarer

However, this is totally inaccurate. "Capitalism" is neither a system, nor anything in practice. To explain:

Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

That means private property, market-emergent currency, no taxes, no regulation, no state unions, no welfare, no forced labor, no implicit contracts, no corporations, no fiat, no government contracts.

Unless you can describe a economy ever to emerge in history, then the term Capitalism means nothing to you or I.

Now another definition:

Dirigisme: State control of economic and social matters.

As you can see, what you are describing inaccurately as Capitalism, is actually Dirigisme. Which is to say, every kind of economy to exist since Babylon.

Anybody at all is free to address this point to the best of their ability.

Some info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme

Dirigisme or dirigism (from French diriger 'to direct') is an economic doctrine in which the state plays a strong directive role as opposed to a merely regulatory interventionist role over a capitalist market economy.[1] As an economic doctrine, dirigisme is the opposite of laissez-faire, stressing a positive role for state intervention in curbing alleged productive inefficiencies and market failures. Dirigiste policies often include indicative planning, state-directed investment, and the use of market instruments (taxes and subsidies) to incentivize market entities to fulfill state economic objectives.

Welcome to the "subversive" dark side. — 180 Proof

Whose controlling that subversive attack, you think? Any monopolies come to mind?

"Subversive attack?"

"Subversive attack?" — 180 Proof

Typo: dark side

I sometimes entertain the rather subversive idea that the role of modern culture is to make the world a safe space for the ignorant ('ignorance' in the traditional sense of the absence of wisdom or sagacity). — Wayfarer

You make that sound like a bad thing. :razz: Thanks for expanding on the topic.

Anyway - with respect to the OP, there are states of endogenous depression, which I'm sure you know, and which are properly the province of mental health and medical professionals. But there's also the dimension of existential angst. — Wayfarer

I've worked with many people who are depressed - hundreds now. Many of whom wanted to suicide and some of them have done so. I have nothing much of value to say about the matter on a forum except that Andrew Solomon wrote a very good book on the subject, an anatomy of depression called The Noonday Demon. For me the question isn't really why do people get it, it's why do some people recover.

Perhaps Viktor Frankl's insights might be relevant to that.

I like him a lot and I think he covers a lot of ground.

It is connected with loss of competence and self-esteem. It is loss of a kind of sense-making — Joshs

I dare say it is. The loss of feeling is the loss of meaning and value. All I am saying is that it is not the situation that cannot be coped with, it's the emotion one has, which may well include loss of self esteem or even self loathing. And without ruling out predisposing factors such as genetics, epigenetics, social conditions such as patriarchy industrial and post industrial conditions, and the loss of social support networks of extended family and the increase of isolation and the promotion of individuality, it is generally the case that traumatic stress is the most usual triggering cause.

https://www.healthline.com/health/ptsd-and-depression

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/post-traumatic-stress-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20355967

https://www.psypost.org/2019/01/traumatic-stress-can-lead-to-depression-when-it-interferes-with-daily-activities-study-finds-53003

Etc.

https://psychcentral.com/depression/depression-causes#risk-factors
https://psychcentral.com/depression/trauma-and-depression

That should cover the rest of your comments. And Rousseau/ Christian and me are antithetical to one another. I formulate my views on data and philosophy. — Garrett Travers

I myself do not define children as loving, I said they areby nature loving, explorative, game generating, and otherwise not miserbale. An observation born out by data across multiple studies - that was a broad analysis I sent you - and one that, for the vast majority of children, only differs among those with abusive parents. Which is of course, an ethical violation for all the same reasons. — Garrett Travers

We are not that far off actually. I agree with this, I have no reason not to. Except that abusive parents are the sole cause. I was quite a depressed child with no abusing parents whatsoever. The cause for my depression had other reasons. However although they are by nature not miserable, the nature of their game can make others miserable. However, I agree, by nature they are not depressed. On the other hand what nature is, is still debatable. Children are by nature social as well and the social comes with conflicts, so by nature children would also be conflictual.

About the article, I do remark that the correlations found are very small. I do know a bit about epidemiological research and if I see correlations like these I become suspicious, but hey it is a published article so I will leave that work to the editors.

And Rousseau/ Christian and me are antithetical to one another. I formulate my views on data and philosophy. — Garrett Travers

Not at all, you are grown up and embedded in a cultural framework. You can as little disentangle yourself from it as you can from modern day technology. On the whole though I agree with your points made above and concede I could have misread your statements for normative claims.

Depression is a consequence of being divorced from nature in general, and one's own nature in particular. There are countless ways in which this may be brought about. But because it is a departure from the natural state of a human being it cannot be regarded as the 'default' state; for the default state of man is not the unnatural, weakened, domesticated state to which the majority of mankind have willingly reduced themselves (a significant portion of them suffering from depression as a direct consequence of humans separating themselves from nature; but though all instances of human depression can ultimately be traced back to the same underlying root cause, it does not lead to depression in all individuals; but it does produce all manner of dysfunctionality and mental disease, depending on personal circumstnances and individual peculiarities of character and temperament; and the vast majority of people are afflicted with some form of mental illness, whether recognised as such or not). Is it any wonder that being in a degraded state would be associated with feeling depressed? Is not depression the feeling that naturally corresponds to the state of degradation? Is not depression therefore simply the consciousness of the fact that one has become degraded? But then people are indoctrinated with a belief system that makes them interpret their feelings in a different light. So they think depression is just a 'condition' that they have to treat, or for which they should seek a cure. But that's just an attempt to get rid of the feelings that naturally go hand in hand with being a degraded human being divorced from nature. The depression is the body or subsconious trying to tell you useful information about how degraded and unnatural you have become. It's telling you to return to nature and stop degrading yourself. But if you just get rid of the feeling of depression you are still going to be eaten away and destroyed by the same thing which causes the feeling of depression.

Clearly, then, depression is not the default state of man. Quote the contrary. It is only the default state for those human beings that are totally separated from their real 'default' state, namely the natural state. The natural state is to feel high all the time. The reason people do drugs is because they are trying to get a taste of the natural human state which is very similar to being 'high' on certain recreational drugs except without any of the negative aspects, or the dulling effect that such substances have on the mind.

it is not the situation that cannot be coped with, it's the emotion one has, which may well include loss of self esteem or even self loathing. — unenlightened

Older models of emotion have tended to characterize feeling as something that takes place inside one’s body and is directed toward it, as opposed to perceptions of the outer world. So there is an inner-outer split here. Matthew Ratcliffe is among those attempting to integrate phenomenological insights with embodied approaches to cognition. For Ratcliffe, feelings are both ‘feelings of the body’ and ‘ways of finding oneself in a world’.” We don’t simply experience body states as an inward focused datum. Rather , bodily feeling is the vehicle through which we encounter the world.

“I will assume, from the outset, that contrasts between the ‘feeling’ aspect of emotion and the world-directed intentionality of emotion are misplaced. Many bodily feelings are themselves intentional and their objects are not restricted to one’s own bodily states.”

“Although these two sides can be distinguished conceptually, they cannot be separated. It is not as if the two sides or aspects of phenomenal experience can be detached and encountered in isolation from one other. When I touch the cold surface of a refrigerator, is the sensation of coldness that I then feel a property of the experienced object or a property of the experience of the object? The correct answer is that the sensory experience contains two dimensions, namely one of the sensing and one of the sensed, and that we can focus on either.”( Zahavi)

it is generally the case that traumatic stress is the most usual triggering cause. — unenlightened

Traumatic stress, as a feeling, is world-directed, a way in which things appear salient and matter to us.

The 'first noble truth' of Buddhism is that existence is 'dukkha' - generally translated as stressful, sorrowful, unsatisfactory. It is inherent to human existence, unavoidable - but there is a path out of dukkha, which is to identify the root cause. All of this is laid out and elaborated in innummerable ways by various schools of Buddhism.

The broader point however is that I think many ancient philosophies were oriented around the fact of existential dread and its amelioration - Stoicism, Platonism, and other Greek philosophies also approach it in those terms.

The radical problem with modern culture is that it seeks to 'normalise' the human condition, instead of seeing it as problematical or flawed, and then can't understand why happiness is still so hard to obtain — Wayfarer

I guess the modern approach to mental health is get used to it! or, roughly, shut up or put up! It makes sense, pragmatically speaking; after all, there's not much we can do to reduce all the suffering around us. To feel empathy and attempt to share the burden would be like throwing good money after bad. There's no need for the sorry lot to drag those better than them down into the pits of misery, oui?

See my other thread about boredom, I think we have similar themes.. It is existential boredom that is the default state. Depression is more of a physiological response.. One doesn't find joy in this or that.. I think the default state might be more akin to dysthymia when we have nothing to get "caught up in" and can lead to more existential ideas upon further self-reflection of these states.

I guess the modern approach to mental health is get used to it! or, roughly, shut up or put up! — Agent Smith

From the Buddhist point of view, that's encouraging people to endure needless suffering. The issue is that post-Enlightenment culture has lost sight of there being any way out of it, but that is due to its own philosophical shortcomings.

Clearly, then, depression is not the default state of man. Quote the contrary. It is only the default state for those human beings that are totally separated from their real 'default' state, namely the natural state. The natural state is to feel high all the time. The reason people do drugs is because they are trying to get a taste of the natural human state which is very similar to being 'high' on certain recreational drugs except without any of the negative aspects, or the dulling effect that such substances have on the mind. — Luzephyr

This reads like eccentric speculation. What is your source of this information?

I guess the modern approach to mental health is get used to it! or, roughly, shut up or put up!
— Agent Smith

From the Buddhist point of view, that's encouraging people to endure needless suffering. The issue is that post-Enlightenment culture has lost sight of there being any way out of it, but that is due to its own philosophical shortcomings. — Wayfarer

:up:

Being sad or cautious must be a default? We seek change then? When we are happy and carefree that isn't most of the time? We always have to keep digging deeper in life?

Perhaps Viktor Frankl's insights might be relevant to that. — Wayfarer

No. He figured out his life philosophy before he was imprisoned, so he had an absolute advantage.
What would be relevant is if he would develop a meaningful philosophy of life while imprisoned; if he would have gone in unprepared, but came out wise.

it is generally the case that traumatic stress is the most usual triggering cause. — unenlightened

Why is that so? What do your sources say?

It seems "traumatic stress" is so powerful because it forces the person to face moral quandaries for which they were not prepared for.

I guess the modern approach to mental health is get used to it! or, roughly, shut up or put up! — Agent Smith

It seems this has always been the main approach most people used, and used a lot.
Remember, for the greater part of human history, human life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". And yet people somehow made it through it. Given the rich art history they've left behind, it seems they managed somehow. Perhaps they even coped better than we do, perhaps because their expectations about life were lower than ours.

The issue is that post-Enlightenment culture has lost sight of there being any way out of it, but that is due to its own philosophical shortcomings. — Wayfarer

Or it's the case that post-Enlightenment culture has too high expectations from life, so high they are bound to be disappointed, thus guaranteeing an additional misery.

I guess the modern approach to mental health is get used to it! or, roughly, shut up or put up! It makes sense, pragmatically speaking; after all, there's not much we can do to reduce all the suffering around us. — Agent Smith

Not really. If you look at public mental health campaigns in most Western countries the advice is defiantly not to shut up. It is the opposite. Usually it's, go see someone and talk to them about it - a doctor, a therapist, and shop around to get someone you click with and is actually helpful. Many big employers in my country offer free counselling to anyone who is dealing with trauma or grief and loss or depression. A lot of investment in this work was generated because of alarming suicide rates.

You maybe right. But boredom is certainly less robust than sadness or something that grabs our attention. What in boredom compels us to find stimuli? If we fail to get out of boredom what do we face?