Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Charles Darwin was mentally ill

page: 2
50
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I am sure you will be aware that human history is littered with people who achieved greatness both through their thoughts and through their deeds whilst being what some may describe as 'mentally ill'.

Darwin would have been by no way unique.

And then look at the pain and suffering that many so called spiritual people put themselves through to achieve their spiritual enlightenment.

Darwin may have been 'mentall ill' but it doesn't detract from the scientific strength of his arguement.

I'm not saying it's perfect and that there aren't any holes in his theory, but it's by far the best we have at present.

And I'm certainly not arrogant enough to completely dismiss some aspects of spiritual thought.




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
the logic of the OP is sad. Mentaly ill doesn't mean you are wrong about something either. Just mentally ill.


And I think its sad that one of the fathers of natural science, one of the guys most revered in the 19th and 20th Century, one of the big heroes electrocuted himself in the search for joy. I mean COME ON! Thats really severely inept.

Do you think kids would be well advised to skip school and go study from people in mental asylyms instead?



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Maybe he was Agoraphobic full of depressions because he known that there is so much people like you in this world and even his best work can´t change it.

I´m also considering electrocuting myself when I´m reading your posts.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Uh, electro-convulsive therapy is proven to rewire the brain. Sounds like he was ahead of his time in more ways than we usually think of.

Also, why does it say you're offline when you're not? Is that a special feature of mods, or am I unaware of this function?

[edit on 25-6-2010 by unityemissions]


+5 more 
posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I think it is safe to say that anyone that believes the bible holds the truth of human origins is mentally ill by the fact that they purposely shield themselves from reality to keep their fantasy world from shattering around them.

Does that make them a bad people? No.
Has it held modern society back, and killed more people than anything one idea in history? Yes.

If believing Charles Darwin was mentally ill to the point where all of his accomplishments are now invalid comforts you, then by all means believe what you want to so your world stays intact, but don’t try to spread the disease any further than necessary.


[edit on 25-6-2010 by tooo many pills]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Im sure some get a real tickle out of it.




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Who here will be brave enough to say they have suffered from mental illness in their life. I have and like a number of other people have had dark thoughts. In fact, the term mental illness is wrong. We are talking about an area of study that is trying to diagnose conditions of the mind as if it were diseased. This is an area of study that we know very little about.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
Who here will be brave enough to say they have suffered from mental illness in their life.


In my world they get care and counseling. And in the real world they hold lectures on the origin of species.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Hi Skyfloating, I don’t know if this has some value, but I thought it fits in a way in this discussion.
For those who want to know a bit more about Darwin’s sickness and what could have been the reason for that is here an interesting article from a physician, also a psychiatrist, named Ralph Colp, Jr.

Here are some excerpts of that article.


Ralph Colp, Jr., a physician and psychiatrist, became interested in Darwin's case and, in 1959—a century after Darwin's book,—began researching everything he could find on Darwin. For the next 18 years he exhaustively studied into the matter, and in 1977 published a book on his conclusions.



BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
Why would a strong, healthy young man develop such a condition?
"A few years after returning to England from his five-year voyage of exploration, Charles Darwin became a semi-invalid who suffered daily for the rest of his life. Doctors were baffled; they could find neither cause nor cure.

"As a young man Darwin had uncommon strength and endurance. During the Beagle expedition, he endured rough seas, primitive conditions on overland treks and rode spirited horses with the roughest gauchos in Argentina. Whenever he encountered a mountain on his inland treks, he usually climbed it. Yet a few years later, he was afflicted with almost daily weakness, vomiting, and chronic fatigue."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 113.

Various theories about Darwin's health problem have been devised, but none have been as thoroughly researched as Colp's. Indeed, there are oddities about Darwin that lend strong credence to Colp's ideas. You will recall statements by Darwin, quoted elsewhere in these Encyclopedia articles, that he did not like to think about the human eye because it disturbed him and the sight of a peacock's feather made him sick. Why would those thoughts and sights so deeply disturb him? Because he knew, deep down, that he was on the wrong track in his theories.
He also wept frequently over a letter his wife gave him early in their marriage.

"In 1839, Darwin married his first cousin Emma Wedgwook, whose traditional religious beliefs were opposed to his unorthodox inquiries into the origin of species. Soon after their marriage, she wrote him a letter, begging him to reconsider challenging the Bible's account of Creation, lest they be separated for eternity in the hereafter. All his life he cherished her touching letter (many times I have kissed and cried over this), but remained committed to his scientific career."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 110.

Why would Darwin weep over that letter, if he did not believe what it said? He wept over it—and repeatedly—during his life, because it was telling him something he believed—yet emotionally did not want to accept. For the same reason it made him feel sick when he thought of evidences for Creation which were unanswerable, such as the complex structure of the eye or the orderly pattern of a peacock's feather. Those evidences make him feel sick, for he knew they were not true.


Ralph Colp’s conclusions were.


The depth of Colp's research clearly provides solutions.
According to Colp, Darwin's weakness, nausea, inability to work, depression, insomnia, and other symptoms were all part of a complex psychosomatic condition brought on by deep conflicts about his lifework.
As Colp sees it, Darwin's theorizing about evolution injured his health because he saw too many conflicts in his theories.
Colp says that Darwin even experienced an "identity crisis" as a result of his emotional turmoil.
Colp decided that the physical problems started when Darwin began his theorizing, and worsened thereafter.
Colp believes it was this guilt and ambivalence that kept Darwin for years from writing his book, until he did it to keep Wallace from obtaining prior credit ahead of himself.


www.pathlights.com...

Regarding who Ralph Colp is, is here an interesting interview of him.


A Biographer and His Subject: Ralph Colp and Charles Darwin
Paul H. Elovitz, The Psychohistory Forum and Ramapo College

Ralph Colp, Jr., was born October 12, 1924, in New York City.
He received his MD from Columbia in 1948 and was an active surgeon for five years before becoming a Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (Psychiatry) in 1965.
As Attending Psychiatrist at Columbia University Health Services from 1960-1993, Dr. Colp performed diagnostic evaluation and psychotherapy with graduate students as well as workshops on identity formation.
He also supervised the psychotherapy of junior clinicians, continuing this after his formal retirement from Columbia.
He continues in the private practice of psychiatry in Manhattan, with many of his patients coming for sex therapy -- in the 1970s, he became a senior associate, Program of Human Sexuality and Sex Therapy at the New York University Medical Center.
Having made his scholarly reputation as an expert on Darwin’s health and psychology, the interviewee is best known for To Be an Invalid: The Illness of Charles Darwin (1977), which is being revised substantially and expanded to include Darwin’s “Diary of Health.” Dr. Colp serves on the Editorial Board of Clio's Psyche and has written over 100 articles and book reviews on Darwin, William Halsted, medical history, Russian revolutionaries, and many other subjects, including the "History of Psychiatry" section for Sadock and Sadock, Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, since 1986.
He became an early member of the Psychohistory Forum and has been a devoted member of the Forum’s Communism: The God That Failed Research Group and its successor group on psychobiography.
The inter-view was conducted in Dr. Colp’s Manhattan office on East 79th Street on September 13, 2001. (A chapter closely related to this interview is “Living With Charles Darwin,” Paul H. Elovitz, ed., Historical and Psychological Inquiry, 1990, pp. 219-235.)


The rest you can read here.

www.cliospsyche.org...



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
sad that darwin was dabbling in electro convulsive shock therapy. no sad is when people get drunk everyday, believe in a bunch of nonsense conjecture, and then go to the office where they happen to be the president of the US ala G.W. Bush. There are a lot of people that some segaments of society highly respect who are doing much more psychotic stuff to themselves than what darwin was doing. so it's still non sequiter to make an association between the two. (darwin/mental illness and the validity of his theory.)

Like I said. beethoven. mentally ill. still a great composer and musician the two had no coorelation, as is often the case. just look at tom cruise. mentally ill, but a good actor. just cause he's crazy doesn't mean he cant act. now coasting his whole career using only his mediocre looks and that crazy grin/smile of his that he can't turn off is a whole other issue.

and again people what did hawkings ever do to you to get him on your bad side. what he accidentally ran over your shoe with his wheel chair at the super market while he was looking for depends or something. give the guy a break already.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 

Yeah I agree with you, anglodemonicmatrix that's going down the Glen Hoddle route of which there is no coming back.

news.bbc.co.uk...

This is an interesting thread and I have to say I'm for the most part clearly as mental as Darwin, only without the success and devoted followers. I have to agree with some of the other posters that mental illness is no reason to completely disregard his study. Another example of a widely revered but flawed individual is Sigmund Freud, who enjoyed Charly Chalk a little more than the average bear, and even prescribed it to treat certain mental 'disorders.' People still quote his work and use his examples of analysis.

www.historyhouse.com... aine/


[edit on 25-6-2010 by Big Raging Loner]

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Big Raging Loner]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 




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?


Yeah, you're right, being brainwashed into belief in a magical sky man is a much better way to attain happiness than repeated shocks.



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.


One doesn't need to believe in a higher power or God in order to find meaning in life and many religious people seem without purpose desperately calling out to an absent God to give their life meaning while neglecting their own aspirations and desires.

One does not need to be an atheist to be depressed or to dread death. Also you're neglecting other forms of philosophy aren't you? Religion was not the only place to get ones lifestyle from.

The happy delusion of religion... It all boils down to whether you'd rather accept reality and whatever emotional state reality brings or buy into an illusion in order to numb the pain with hopes of loving Father figures in Heaven and an afterlife.

It doesn't matter if Darwin was depressed, the evidence found during his life and since his death is irrefutable - it all points toward Evolution. Depression or not he was correct



and that we are the result of a chain of coincidences arising from dead matter.


That is a rather pitiful summary of the theory of Evolution because that's a statement about ABIOGENESIS - NOT Evolution. The matter that went to making the first proto-cells was not chemically dead, it was organic and it was self-replicating. Organisms even today are all about chemical reactions and passing on genes. 3 billion years later and not much has changed.

I think whether or not Darwin was a sad emo scientist has little bearing on his theory especially since most of the supporting evidence for evolution was discovered AFTER his death. Not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, where the conspiracy is in it and why you posted it in Origins and Creationism - unless you honestly believe him being sad casts doubt on his theory.

Edit to Add: Sigmund Freud was known to experiment with Cocaine, are we going to toss out everything he added to psychology? Darwin's personality quirks hardly trump solid scientific evidence.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
people get drunk everyday, believe in a bunch of nonsense conjecture, and then go to the office where they happen to be the president of the US ala G.W. Bush. There are a lot of people that some segaments of society highly respect who are doing much more psychotic stuff to themselves than what darwin was doing. so it's still non sequiter to make an association between the two. (darwin/mental illness and the validity of his theory.)


Just like I wouldnt want a psycho as a college-teacher I wouldnt want a drunkard for President.

Beethoven: During his times of illness, his musical output dropped.

Tom Cruise: Has not been diagnosed as mentally ill



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


No, but Tom Cruise on Oprah certainly displayed characteristics of someone with questionable mental faculties.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Opinions aside, Darwin's Theory on the origin of life has been disproven for 40 years.



Levinthal's paradox shows mathematical that a simple protein 100 units long would take about 10^25th years to randomly adopt the correct 3 dimensional confirmation...all on its own.

10^25 years is much longer than the Universe has been around.


This is something never pointed out in modern text-books, because the PTB have their own agenda.





[edit on 25-6-2010 by zzombie]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by zzombie
 





The theory that life formed when a lightning bolt hit a mud puddle is highly unlikely.


Face Palm.

Evolution has nothing to do with lightning striking a mud puddle.

That's a straw man version of Abiogenesis and has no bearing on evolution, its not even a hypothesis on abiogenesis.


Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.


Evolution

Your post is 100% fail.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


The "soup" theory relies on the assumption proposed by Darwin, that in an environment with no pre-existing life, organic molecules may have accumulated and provided an environment for chemical evolution.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

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 have never heard this kind of comparison. Of course, I'm not part of an "atheist culture", but I imagine that there is NO relation between someone's spirituality and their sanity. In fact, I've seen plenty of spiritual people who I thought were pretty delusional. And lots of brilliant people who are clearly sane.



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.


Just playing devil's advocate here, because I DO have some spiritual beliefs. This sounds awful close to saying that life without religion or spiritual roots is a life without value or meaning... Am I misinterpreting?

So, Darwin sounds like he had his share of issues.
Fortunately, I never read any of his work, nor did I "follow" him because I came about my atheistic beliefs on my own.



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 .


I'm certain there are many atheists who came to their beliefs on their own, without the help of Darwin, insane or not.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
The words crazy, and mentally ill, are just labels we can stick on people to make them irrelevant... no?



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
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.


If wanting to live a life based on reality and truth is insane, and living a life based on fairy tales and misguided, unproven faith is normal, then let me be insane.


Other notable men who were believed insane (and in many cases were)

Michaelangelo
Edgar Allan Poe
Vincent Van Gogh
Isaac Newton
Socrates
John Nash
Charles Dickens
Leo Tolstoy
Ernest Hemmingway
John Keats
Abraham Lincoln
Victor Hugo
Oliver Cromwell
Tennessee Williams
Winston Churchill
William Blake
Edgar Degas
T.S. Eliot
Francisco De Goya
John Lennon
Martin Luther
Herman Melville
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Friedrich Nietzsche
Robert Oppenheimer
Jackson Pollock
Sergei Rachmaninoff
John D. Rockefeller
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
Kurt Vonnegut
Mark Twain
Walt Whitman
Virginia Woolf






top topics



 
50
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join