It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Charles Darwin was mentally ill

page: 19
50
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by lifecitizen
 


Psycho-spirituality is a term to combine both psychological and spiritual knowledge on the well-being of a human. On the one hand we have modern psychology, on the other hand we have additional knowledge handed down from Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. There are crossover points between modern psychology and ancient spirituality, hence "psycho-spiritual".

The term psycho-spiritual also hints at psychological issues and states as caused spiritually rather than by environmental stimuli only. From this perspective a human is not only a reactive animal but a spiritual being.




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Trying to discredit a scientist by calling him mentally ill?


Trying? No, not trying. Succeeding.



Originally posted by riley

Trying to discredit a scientist by calling him mentally ill?


Am I calling him ill or was he ill?`All evidence points in the direction that he WAS.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by judoka
Actually, electro shock therapy does work very well for extremely depressed people. He was clearly a man ahead of his time.


According to his contemporaries it didnt work for him.


I doubt if the arsenic helped either, or the fact that he may have been lactose intolerant. see prior post that you seem to have ignored.

or the fact that some people do have a real mental pathology

Narcissism is the personality trait of egotism denoting vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others.

hmm maybe medtation helps ...yeah

comments



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by lifecitizen
 


Psycho-spirituality is a term to combine both psychological and spiritual knowledge on the well-being of a human. On the one hand we have modern psychology, on the other hand we have additional knowledge handed down from Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. There are crossover points between modern psychology and ancient spirituality, hence "psycho-spiritual".

The term psycho-spiritual also hints at psychological issues and states as caused spiritually rather than by environmental stimuli only. From this perspective a human is not only a reactive animal but a spiritual being.


Okay, so are you saying people who don't believe they are a spiritual being suffer neurosis?
I hadnt heard the term before, thanks for that.
What are some of the cross over points?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Lets summarize

My view:

1. Darwin was emotionally ill
2. Emotional illness impedes intellectual work

Majority view:

1. Darwin was emotionally ill
2. Emotional illness does not impede intellectual work

Other ways of putting the majority view:

Psychological Health doesnt matter much.

Spritual Health doesnt matter much.

A depressed and suicidal expert, teacher, scientist, researcher is fine, it has no negative effects on his results or the people he teaches.

Since mental illness does not impede ones intellectual abilities we should send our children to a mental asylym to learn about life, nevermind school.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by lifecitizen
Okay, so are you saying people who don't believe they are a spiritual being suffer neurosis?
I hadnt heard the term before, thanks for that.
What are some of the cross over points?


A part of spiritual education in many schools is being able to handle emotions and overcome negativity. Hinduism offers a vast array of techniques of yoga and meditation. Buddhism offers meditation and mantras. Christianity and Judaism and Islam offer prayers and rules-to-live-by and even eating habits.

The mystical versions of these Religions offer ways to directly experience higher realms. Neurosis and Psychosis cannot exist in such frequencies.

Spiritual perception is squashed by dumbed-down by the way schooling of children has worked for thousands of years and continues to work today.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackOps719

Is it better to be happy while placing your faith into something that doesn't exist, or miserable because you know the reality and the gravity of your fate?

I would wager that the man probably felt a terrible weight upon him, having spent years proving to himself that there is no God, no reason, no greater plan. Just a poorly understood, evolving world.


I wish I could share your materialist faith, sadly I'm convinced I'll be reincarnating for a long, long time.. possibly forever. Now which fate is really the daunting one? There is no existential dilemma if you're an atheist, there's nothing to fear.. just the sweet embrace of a final death and you won't even know it when you're done.

Being trapped in a wheel of reincarnation forever is a pretty daunting concept in comparison, possibly even nightmarish.. have life been so good to you? It's easy just saying it, and hard to write it.. but I think I would've chosen the one life and just be done with it all.
I'm only 23 and life's been tedious for years already, feels like I've done it to death already.. then again I'm bipolar so I'm a mentally ill defective just like Van Gogh, Beethoven and Churchill.
Guess this is my black dog speaking..

Just wanted to share my incredible cynic yet spiritual perspective on things since most spiritual people seem to be stuffed to the rim with light, love and rainbows.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
oh man, this is a volatile thread . . .

is this all in an effort to expound "the pot frequently calls the kettle black"?

spiritual people are indeed unjustly stigmatized and considered removed from reality. while naturalists who are undoubtedly deranged are pardoned.

i can see how this double standard is frustrating skyflo.

but what is the direction of this thread? where do we go from here?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Lets summarize

My view:

1. Darwin was emotionally ill
2. Emotional illness impedes intellectual work

Majority view:

1. Darwin was emotionally ill
2. Emotional illness does not impede intellectual work

Other ways of putting the majority view:

Psychological Health doesnt matter much.

Spritual Health doesnt matter much.

A depressed and suicidal expert, teacher, scientist, researcher is fine, it has no negative effects on his results or the people he teaches.

Since mental illness does not impede ones intellectual abilities we should send our children to a mental asylym to learn about life, nevermind school.






would you care to comment on my posts as you seem to require others to do of yours, to the extent of badgering, and no that is your summary and again some people do have real pathologies that involve ego whilst claiming to be spiritual and some people dont send their children to school either.

I would contend he was ill and suffering from the effects of medicine of that day including arsenic and you may not agree with his findings but they are his.

His work was ground breaking for the time, and the vedas were not it seems even translated by his contemporary Friedrich Max Müller the Sanskrit scholar until the mid 1800's. There is much discourse between the two esp about languages.

One should look at discoveries in a historical context that includes medicine, the social clime etc.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA

would you care to comment on my posts as you seem to require others to do of yours,


Your posts are showing other possible causes of his illness than the cause I suggest in the OP. I havent commented on that because there is nothing to comment about it. Im glad you provide readers of this thread with another angle. Thats what threads are all about.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
but what is the direction of this thread? where do we go from here?


None, its run its Course.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


To respond to two accusations because its really important:

1. I do not have anything against mentally ill people - I do believe they EXIST as such though.

2. I am not a racist. I actually enjoy speaking Jamaican-English once in awhile. Speaking the language of another culture does not make you a "racist", on the contrary. Only someone with cognitive issues would think so.

3. I believe that mental illness leads to mental impairment. It is not politically correct to say so, hence the outrage in this thread.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by riley

Trying to discredit a scientist by calling him mentally ill?


Trying? No, not trying. Succeeding.


I don't think you are succeeding at all. He had problems, certainly, does that make him 'mentally ill' or does that make him human. He was by all accounts a highly spiritual person, that he had problems in his life that caused him to flounder and fail at times, at least he could acknowledge that and tried to remedy that, and it makes his achievements all the more admirable. A need to educate others, or to share one's ideas, can drive us all mad, only though when we acknowledge that we cannot answer all life's questions alone can we start to heal. The problem with pioneerism, or in travelling the path least trod, is that often we have to do so alone, that is why there is a very fine line between genius and madness. We are, by our very nature, social animals and to be alone is completely alien to us, and in the realm of ideas, discussion is vital to progression. Especially when it requires going against the thoughts and beliefs that we have been indoctrinated to follow, as Darwin was. He did a wonderful thing, he stood up and allowed the arrows to be flung at him, that he wavered, that he felt weakened by it, is perfectly understandable, but I for one applaud his bravery and am saddened that the ground that he broke did not give him greater solace. Because of him, we have been able to understand so much more about ourselves, and of course much of his work is outdated, but that is what a pioneer does, he sets the foundations on which others can build.


Originally posted by riley

Trying to discredit a scientist by calling him mentally ill?


Am I calling him ill or was he ill?`All evidence points in the direction that he WAS.

In your judgement. How nice to have the luxury of perfection from which to judge. And how neutral is that evidence? People worried about him, wanted him to slow down, feared that his drive to complete his work would destroy him and so we know that he was a person that people loved. People were jealous of him, threatened by his ideas and sought to discredit him, we therefore know that his ideas challenged the status quo. Such bravery at that time. But all that evidence is subjective, even that which comes from Darwin himself, as he sought to assauge the fears of those that loved him and front up to those who wished to see him fail.

That he had conflicts in his life is all the explanation you need to understand how very important his work was to him. Is that 'wrong'? Would we be better off had he not sacrificed his life for knowledge and instead folded himself into the lotus and contemplated his navel instead? Perhaps, but it was his life, and mentally ill or not, he at least lived it the way that he wanted to and that is a lesson for us all. And he did no harm through it, only those that seek to suppress free expression of ideas do that. Yes he created a pulpit for the likes of Dawkins, but in opposition there is you and the spiritualism is best stance. Now there's balance, before Darwin there was none. He gave us choice and he also enabled for the merging of the two into the psycho-spiritual as you call it.

And, to paraphrase what the moderators of this site usually say in such cases, criticise the idea, not the person. We have moved on from Darwin, and evolutionary theory is still by no means complete or in fact a definitive answer, but it broadened the discussion and that is a beautiful thing to anyone who loves life.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
In your judgement. How nice to have the luxury of perfection from which to judge.


Ah yes, its only my judgement that he was ill. Or like another poster put it: "Mental Illness is only a label"

By those standards I could go on a killing spree and if someone judged me because of it I could say "Its not true that Im crazy. Its only in your judgement. Dont label me or discriminate against me"



And, to paraphrase what the moderators of this site usually say in such cases, criticise the idea, not the person. We have moved on from Darwin, and evolutionary theory is still by no means complete or in fact a definitive answer, but it broadened the discussion and that is a beautiful thing to anyone who loves life.


Darwin was an inspiration for both Hitler and Stalin, two of the greatest mass-murderers of all time.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Well isn't there something like ten percent of the population that is expected to develop mental illlness at some time in their life? But how does this invalidate the genius of someone like Darwin?

I believe that the OP's view is far too simplistic and sadly places them in the same place as their mirror image enemies - which I call the raving sceptiks.

What about the scientists who also have religious convictions or belong to religious systems??? Not all of them put their heads over the parapets.

What about those people who also have come forward and admitted that they have mental health issues. One of the most entertaining is Stephen Fry the British Actor, presenter and TV personality?






[edit on 27-6-2010 by Tiger5]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I have just re-read this whole thread and I do feel that it has more or less ran it's course.

There are some things that I would like to address first and some that I shall leave unsaid and wait for the appropriate time, suffice to say that another little bit of respect for ATS has gone, very sad.

I asked you a few specific questions earlier in the thread and you noticeably didn't reply to them, I accept that....but the one thing I really want clarity on is earlier you stated that you believed some people are mentally and physically ill due to some sort of divine karmic justice placed upon them due to indiscretions / sins / call them whatever you want either earlier in this life cycle or in a previous one.

Do you honestly believe that?

No pseudo techno babble; a simple yes or no and maybe a brief explanation would do, please.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


If you're beliefs run so deep that you loose respect toward a former ATS "Pal" (OK, we werent Pals, but we respected each other) maybe its time to examine yourself.

I have not lost my respect towards you, despite quite extreme differences. I will continue to read and star your posts. I will continue to be interested in what you say.

Now to your question of whether I "really" believe in karma. The answer is: Yes, I believe in Karma. I believe that everything we experience throughout the millenia and the universe was originally instigated by our words and actions. So if, for example, I treat someone poorly here on ATS, I will get it back sooner or later. Divine Justice. Oftetimes it can take many a lifetime before I get it back. In other words one can "forget" ones own responsibility in an issue.

And yes, I also believe that suffering is a natural part of life. Buddhism talks at length about accepting suffering as natural rather than going around whining about it. Acceptance can also be a first step to healing.


edit on by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Oh my! This thread is a bit stinky, no?



methinks you are right, ahh the benefits of hindsight, who knows the pathologies of pseudo-spirituality of the narcissist may indeed be the diagnosis of the day.

pheweeeee



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I have very strong beliefs and can be quite passionate about them, but they are not so set in stone that I am not open to other viewpoints and try to respect all considered opinions.

I said I had lost a bit of respect for ATS, not an individual.
The reasons for I will not go into here but would willingly do so through any other means.

I personally can not believe that a persons mental or physical well being is dependant on their previous actions.
There are many and varied reasons for mental illnesses and the vast majority of physical handicaps are due to genetic mutations of one form or another.

And I certainly don't believe that it is some sort of omnipotent deity / entity that drives and directs such actions.

Suffering is a natural part of life, some just seem to have to suffer much more than others.
And I assure you, I ain't one of life's moaners and whingers, I face up to everything head first but realistically.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
I personally can not believe that a persons mental or physical well being is dependant on their previous actions.


So if its not my thoughts and actions, what is it? Coincidence? "The powers that be"?



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join