Charles Darwin was mentally ill

reply to post by Annee


What is funny about bi-polar is that it isn't your down days that drive you "nuts." It's the mania. I remember times when I didn't sleep for two and three days at a time. It got to where I couldn't remember when something happened. Everything merged together.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
reply to post by Annee

 

What is funny about bi-polar is that it isn't your down days that drive you "nuts." It's the mania. I remember times when I didn't sleep for two and three days at a time. It got to where I couldn't remember when something happened. Everything merged together.

I use diet & environment. The Atkin diet is great.

NO Fast Food. One Mc Donald hamburger can set me off.

Natural foods are very important to mental health.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
reply to post by LarryLove

 

Right!! That is why I can speak on this. I have Bi-polar "disorder." I can tell you, it's not fun, but it's not what some think it is.

I have Bi-Polar episodes - caused from a sugar imbalance. You sure learn quick - - to make your Good Days count.

That's why I say it actually gives Darwin more credibility. Because it would have been that much more valuable to him.

And you make a very salient point. To know your own mental short comings makes you appreciate a 'good' day when it arrives.

OK, I see the point is not getting through. Any further off topic posts will include a posting ban.

That's 2 post bans. Take this seriously folks.

Originally posted by Daniem
YOU BOJO!

What do you make of the OP?

And for a moderator of ATS to make threads

Dont you think Darwins emotional issues changes the way he is perceived?

If i could vote for a removal of your mod staus id vote twice.

Or do you agree with most other posters that a poor mental condition does not inhibit ones ability to think?

I think many here would expect better manners from a moderator.

But what do you make of the OP?

First off, educate yourself on Darwin before making such sweeping statements. Darwin was a very religious man. Because of today's modern fight between church and science, people autmatically think Darwin was an athiest. At one point he even considered becoming a priest. He was never and athiest but would be considered agnostic. He was studying for a degree in theology when he took science courses and developed his love for science. he often quoted the bible.

It was after he voyage on the Beagle that he decided to not become a priest and to start studying evolution.

Darwin believed in intelligent design. His quote:


"My theology is a simple muddle: I cannot look at the Universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent Design."

He even abhorred relgious disagreements. The fight between church and evolution today would appal him.

People using the term "Darwinism" almost as a form of religion is actaully totally against anything he believed and he would be horrified.


\ Darwin was a very religious man. So much so that when he developed the theory of evolution, he felt like he had murdered someone. Because his first fear was that it went against the church.

He struggled with this so much so that he delayed publishing his book for 20 years while trying to decide if he should do so.

Later in life he stopped attending church, probably started dismissing organzing religion is my guess. But he he never stopped believing in God altogether.

So the madness may not have come from a disorder. It certainly didn't come from athiesm. It might of come from the struggle of a man of faith who found evidence against the church and religion as the world knew it, and knew the information would forever change things, make him a possible enemy of the church. That would make you a little nutty.

And now back to our regularly scheduled...

On topic discussion... You know, the one about Charles Darwin and his mental status? Not each others...

Further schizophrenic posting will lead to administrative action and perhaps some quality time with Nurse Ratchet... And we all know what kind of a pain in the butt that means...

Mod Note: Posting Conduct… Play The Ball – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Post On Topic – Please Review This Link.

Thanks...

reply to post by nixie_nox


He couldnt have been too religious considering he viewed Theology as a waste of time and proposed man is descendant not from angelic beings but from animals.

Whatever the case may be, read Richard Dawkins latest book "The Greatest Show on Earth - Evidence for Evolution" and you`ll see that atheists are very fond of Darwin. Why? Because to them Evolution "explains the origins of life without there being a need for God".

So is no-one is willing to put forth scientific evidence that proves that people who suffer from mental illness are intellectually inferior to those who do not? The argument is that Darwin's "insanity" effected his intellect .. yet there is no evidence that it did and there is no scientific evidence that his research has been compromised by it.


[edit on 26-6-2010 by riley]

reply to post by riley


Of course not! The evidence suggests that mentally "ill," at least mentally, are intellectually superior, not inferior.

Skyfloating, Darwin was very religious. Him nd his family prayed at every meal.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Skyfloating, Darwin was very religious. Him

Alright then.

_____________________________________

@Riley: Physical illness refers to physical shortcomings. Mental illness refers to mental/intellectual shortcomings. Hope that clarifies things

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Because spiritually inclined people like myself are too frequently vilified as mentally ill, stupid, deluded I am happy to retort with this piece on the father of Evolution Theory and one of the fathers of modern materialism ("science") and atheism.

This is from the OP, we are told only to discuss Darwins mental illness, if that is so i guess i can't reply to this part as it is more to do with how religious people feel they are villified by atheists. So skipping ahead.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
In spiritual culture good works can only come from someone of healthy mind, body and spirit. In atheist culture there is the cliche that good works can also come from people who are psychotic and deranged or that "geniuses are mostly crazy".

I don't see how those two cultures can't agree on the issue. As someone who claims to be spiritual, don't you think there have been some seriously nuts scientists who have contributed a great deal to scientific understanding? Nikola Tesla was a complete nut job and yet he made some major contributions. Doesn't this therefore contradict your opinion that only those with healthy minds, bodies and spirits can offer good works?

Also Darwin may have been bipolar, not psychotic or deranged. Many people are bipolar but on their good days can contribute a lot to society.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Today I was reading a book by Bill Bryson which contained a humorous passage about Charles Darwin, namely that he had become so lethargic, depressed and disspirited that he kept electrocuting himself in the mistaken belief it would heighten his mood.

Pondering this it suddenly struck me how spiritually inept someone has to be to think he can electrocute himself out of depression! What the hell must have he been thinking?

When depressed people do all kinds of desperate things, of course when someone is bipolar these things can be extreme. This self inflicted action however does not detract from whether Darwins theory was correct or not. You are attacking the person and not the theory. Since Darwins time many "normal" or "healthy" people have studied his theories and agreed they are correct. Indeed many people who believe in god have agreed with his theory and his theory has made predictions which have come to pass.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Rejecting psycho-spiritual roots and causes for a purely materialistic view can lead to difficulties in coping with life and emotions. Why? Because civilizations main source of life-advice was, until last century, found in religious works and because a life without meaning and value can become bitterly bleak.

Some people need religion, some people don't. Some people can cope without it, some can't. Does this make the atheist perspective wrong? Of course not. Equally i could argue that adering to a religion can lead to war and mass slaughter but these are of course extremes so it would be just as unfair to apply that argument.

Again though we run into difficulty as we are told only to discuss Darwins mental condition and yor point here speaks more about atheism and applying it's perspective to the world rather than Darwins own mental health.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Looking him up in the Internet I learned that, in his own words his time studying Theology were the happiest times of his life and that he nevertheless considered Theology a waste of time. (Source: Nora Barlow: The Autobiography of Charles Darwin)

So there you have all the proof you need: That which made him happy was considered "a waste of time" in his very own words and yet all the "experts" say its a "big mystery" why Darwin was so unhappy and sick most of the time. But its no mystery at all.

It may be that Darwin developed bipolar disorder after this time in his life as it can occur later or it can flare up in later life. It would be easy to argue that maybe as his disorder became more severe his manic moods gave him the ability to look beyond the views of the day and develop this new theory.

Of course you are again making the mistake of assuming that theology cheered him up when it may just be his condition at this time wasn't to severe. Therefore when he abandoned his belief in a higher power his condition was also getting worse, so it's all a coincidence.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
From Darwins early life it is known that he found Literature, Languages, Lectures and Art dull and instead preferred Taxidermy, the art of displaying dead animals.

But it gets worse...

Whats bad about taxidermy? Not my thing of course but it shows he had a fascination with animals and maybe that fascination and study of their bodies is what lead to his theory being developed. After all it is a little difficult to develop a theory without a good understanding of the science involved.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

For over forty years Darwin suffered intermittently from various combinations of symptoms such as: malaise, vertigo, dizziness, muscle spasms and tremors, vomiting, cramps and colics, bloating and nocturnal intestinal gas, headaches, alterations of vision, severe tiredness, nervous exhaustion, dyspnea, skin problems such as blisters all over the scalp and eczema, crying, anxiety, sensation of impending death and loss of consciousness, fainting, tachycardia, insomnia, tinnitus, and depression.

Darwinian scholar Michael Ruse even concluded that "Darwin himself was an invalid from the age of 30" (2003, p. 1523)

obias—being in crowds, being alone, or leaving home unless accompanied by his wife (Kaplan and Sadock, 1990, pp. 958-959).

In this abysmal state the guy tells you about the supposed "origin of species" and that we are the result of a chain of coincidences arising from dead matter.

I've had to cut down a lot of the quotes here because it was seriously long, i hope that's ok.

So what are you saying here? That his ill health means he cannot come up with a good theory that has been tested by others and seen to be correct?

Well please write to Stephen Hawking and tell him to shut up then.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Nevermind Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Shintoism, Christianity, Islam, Native American Spirituality and countless other sources who ALL teach of an invisible life force or an intelligent and creative energy as the source of all.

Lets instead take a mentally ill persons word for it that humans came about as a matter of coincidence and that a humans Consciousness does not .

No lets not take someones word for it, that wouldn't be scientific. Instead we have now had a 150 years of study to further confirm that the theory is correct. Genetics was discovered and common ancestry confirmed more fully.

The religions were all created when man didn't understand what he was looking at. We saw lightning and thought a god threw it, a bird clapping it's wings made it or something like that. We saw the stars and thought they were the souls of ancestors as well and then science went and proved that incorrect.

Therefore we can discount religion as a basis for things like how life got here.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]